tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 13, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
>> one thing about the retail street, it is one block long. it's not -- it's just between building 1 and hangar 2. it's along the center line of those buildings, so it's not really a circulation, a destination, but it's an interior street. >> director lai: so if people want to ride their bikes to the retail store, they park at the end of the block and walk down. >> or it will be a slow traffic street. so you can share. >> i think we would have share on the streets. >> director lai: ok, understood. and then question of why the setback area for avenue d, f and g are raised, or is raised above -- >> i think that's allowing for stoops. is that what you're...
>> director lai: isn't that part of the right-of-way though? >> oh, that's it's elevated right there? >> director lai: yeah. >> i think that's subjected to change. that's showing there is a stoop up there. stairs going down. designing stoops, we would want the stoop to be a couple of feet above the sidewalk, not necessarily -- i don't know what the dimension here is, but this doesn't look like it's i have for a proper stoop, so just thinking around what we're trying to ask for. >> just to clarify, we won't be developing any of the vertical for this phase. >> director lai: and then let's see. i also echo the comment about accommodating for vehicular drop-off. i think that's really important.
moving into the future, particularly making sure we set aside enough space for cars to pull over to not conflict with the transit stops. i feel like in the city, we far too often see privatization of bus stops and that just slows down the time for transit. and then i wasn't here when we went through the phase 1, but just curious how cmg interacts with the public art selection? are they part of the discussion? whether cmg is part of the public art discussion? >> president tsen: they have been involved. >> director lai: so they'll stay for the next item? >> pamela would be happy to stay, i was going to give an update on the arts program, but kevin with cmg has been an advisor to the steering
committee in this election panel on providing context for the open spaces where the proposed art pieces are going. >> president tsen: mr. giusti? >> director giusti: this looks great. >> director samaha: i wanted to echo some of my fellow comments. it has to do with parking. i understand the streets here, like the clipper cove promenade, has parking on both sides. and i understand that the building 3 plaza is going to be essentially the parking lot for that area. and i know you anticipate other uses for that plaza in addition to just parking.
what i don't want -- i know with all of our repeated efforts to encourage transit and ferry service and all that, i think it is our hope that this new phase or development is going to bring the island a lot of people to come shopping and dining and all that. and what i don't want to see is cars circling around trying to find parking. i just want to make sure that the impact, the retail streets, and the promenade. is this parking, the building 3 plaza, is this the only nearby parking lot that we have and how do we anticipate dealing with that? >> ok. so we'll go back to the plan. there will be -- that is the only surface parking lot planned, but there are parking
garages that will be built in the future. i know this plan is skewed this way. but if you can see the striped -- looks like stripes on them -- there will be two parking garages. >> director samaha: can you show me where those are? >> they have the vertical -- stripes. that's the parking garage. there is one here and one here as well. that is california avenue. so you're just about half a block away from some parking garage structures. plus there is parking on most of the streets. >> director samaha: right, yeah, good, i'm glad we have foreseen that, because you know, we don't want, like i said, cars circling around trying to find parking spots, we want this pedestrian friendly environment. we have locations where people
feel the need to drive onto the island, they have easy access to that. ok. thanks. >> director giusti: thank you. i'll start off by echoing the sentiments of my fellow commissioners. it's always wonderful to look at beautiful renditions of well thought out street scapes. question i had was, did we check in with any of our advocacy groups, like walk san francisco, to let them know the plans, get input, maybe get concerns out of the the way early why the design? >> yeah, i can speak to the first phase that we met with all those agencies, groups, special interest groups many times over many years. so not only the special interest groups, but i would say we worked very closely with the accessibility coordinators as
well from dpw. so that will be part of our process again going forward. we'll probably reach out to all of them and let them know we're going forward with the next phase and get comments early on as you suggested and let that inform the next phase of development. >> director giusti: great, thank you. the next thing i have and probably director beck and my commissioners may not appreciate me bringing this up, but i see these beautiful street scapes and they say this is avenue a, i don't think does justice to this refurbished and redone street. it would be nice to look at renaming, maybe nicer names, names appropriate, maybe that honor people that had something to do with the island, those kinds of things. >> president tsen: the plans for naming the streets and like this talk about that panel? >> i can. maybe we can come back and give that presentation sometime.
so they have been named and have wonderful references back to the golden gate international expo. and i think they're pretty fantastic and inspirational. so i think that i imagine we continue to call them avenue a through whatever for logistical purposes for coordinating design of the development phase, but i think that is something we're open to, if the names are approved. we can speak to the logistics side. >> i can include that at the june board meeting as just kind of refresher. but as pamela said, ticd working with treasure island museum association have developed a street-naming plan for the entire island is that we've vetted with public works and the fire department and so forth to make sure we're not replicating
any names. but the names are taken either from artists or architects that were part of the golden gate international exposition as well as place names from within the international exhibition. so for instance, california avenue is proposed to be trade winds avenue. and avenue c will be avenue of the seven seas. but then other streets will be named after artists and architects, because a lot of our existing names for instance, we wouldn't want to have a california avenue on the island because for emergency response and everything, it confuses with california street in the city. and so that was -- we definitely moved away from this planning convention to adopt a plan for the names going forward.
>> director giusti: glad to hear we don't have to figure out how to name streets. >> president tsen: i think it's wonderful that the street names are not too military, which they have been in the past, but rather to artists and architects, who don't get enough recognition. and in cities such as paris, they actually name streets after poets, imagine that? so, we can have a refresher on those names at some point in time. any other comments? i would just like to add one comment. especially as you raise the issue of working collaboration with various interest groups. i know that the bicycle coalition has worked with us, and it is actually wonderful that now there is a link from the east bay along the bay bridge to treasure island. they are working on a bicycle linkage from treasure island to the city. that is something that is in the
future, if it should ever get funded. but i would ask that the design team get the actual experience of similar types of places, for instance, sausalito, which now i understand has 5,000 to 8,000 bicycles a day on average. and i think that treasure island is likewise going to have that type of attraction. and so as you look at the streets, as you look at where the bicycles are parked, that there is the -- that we manage for that. so yes? >> director giusti: i also wanted to add in response to director lai's question. they are designing seating for
the island and there is a range of things that are being proposed along clipper cove in particular. i mentioned the bay steel that we are proposing to put near pier one. we were successful in getting bay bridge seating along clipper cove. cmg has been working with reclaimed wood, to craft custom wood benches and seating for some of the parks as well as they're looking at interesting cast iron designs. so it will be pretty special on the island. >> thank you. >> president tsen: is there any public comment? hearing none, thank you for your presentation. we'll take the next item.
further consideration. so as you know, we brought on arws to do consultations with the existing dda and mixed households and from february through the end of april, they operated a resource center in the residential neighborhood. they were open on tuesday evenings and saturdays to conduct advisory sessions with residents with the goal of educating those pre-dda and mixed households on their future benefit rights and eligibility or options and eligibility. conduct household needs assessment. this is both to inform residents but also to help inform our planning for the residential sites that we'll be constructing with mercy housing, chinatown community development and other providers. and also to assess residents'
interest in buying versus renting and potential eligibility for affordable housing units versus market rate units. and then again, part of informing the planning for those sites to predict the number of units we need and the bedroom count of the units. so, as of last weekend, we had arws had met with 178 of the 204 -- 164 of our 204 pre-dda households. they had two phone consultations scheduled and they'll continue to do the consultations. just a couple of items of interest from the discussions is that more than half of those, almost two-thirds of them, had
expressed an interest in potentially purchasing either a market rate or affordable unit. and some households had expressed interest they would be interested potentially in opportunity as opposed to waiting or choosing to move into replacement on the island. anecdotally, most of the people expressed a great satisfaction with living on the island. and their current housing as it is. but also interested in obviously in the future and continuing to be part of the island. so as i mentioned, some of the takeaways, more than half of the households are interested in homeownership opportunities. 1 in 8 have interest potentially in lieu benefits. there are a number of
complexities around the affordable housing options that i'll touch on a little bit further. also some interest from households in splitting into multiple units. we have roommate and multi-generational situations, so some interest in splitting households. that was not something we particularly queried for, but something that came through the interviews. as well as a lot of dialogue between the consultants and households on the implications of changes in their household over time and how that will affect transition unit size they would be offered. so on the homeownership front, i mentioned before we had a workshop in april that we had coordinated san francisco housing development corporation specifically to outreach to
pre-dda households. we had 51 households attend that, including 43 pre-dda households and seven 1 treasure island households. 1 treasure island had been working to develop a series of home buyer workshops during the hospital of may. but these were not specific to the thrr, but just general information for potential first-time homebuyers. this was open to all households as well as the general public. their first workshop on may 3rd had 34 attendees, only 14 of those were pre-dda. so other much broader constituency represented there. thursday, workshop tomorrow, has
reached its preregistration capacity of 50 people, so hopefully they'll see good turnout there as well. and then there is six-hour workshop coming up on may 19 that is required workshop for some of the city's first-time homebuyer assistance programs. not required for the thrrs, but we'll continue to monitor those as we go forward. some of the top takes i wanted to -- topics that i wanted to discuss, that we're look at for further consideration as we look through the results of all of the interviews, is the early inlieu payment, the desire of the households to split, as well as the trhh process affordable versus market rate unit. on the early in-lieu
opportunities, when we originally set up the thrr, part of the feedback that came through the public comment period on the thrr that resulted in a provision in the thrr to extend an early in-lieu offer, as it was set out at that time, 5-8 years following the adoption of the dda if the people had not yet been offered a transition unit, that they would have the opportunity to take the in-lieu payment if they were choosing to move off of the island. and so even when we considered the delays to the program implementation because of the ceqa litigation, we're still entering that 5-year window period. it's going to take many years for us to offer all of the households transition units.
so i would propose that we make the early in-lieu payment option available to pre-dda households beginning january 2019. we have the capacity in the budget that we've adopted to do so. and so this would be if people were looking to leave the island, that would be available to them pre-dda households. on the front of splitting households, the thrrs are clear there is a household benefit being offered to a market rate transition unit or in-lieu payment. it would be significant burden to provide multiple market rate units to existing households. that would be something that i think would be a challenge for us to adopt, but i think where households could potentially
qualify for an affordable unit or separately qualify for affordable units if they were to split, i think we should give consideration to -- particularly because if you look at the way the household sizes and the income qualification criteria are stacked, you might have a three-person household that given their aggregate incomes would not qualify as a three-person household, but they might separately qualify as one-person and to-person -- two-person household. something we want to look at as a benefit to residents. on the affordable housing discussion, the thrr, the way they were drafted, really put the decision before a household of whether to take a market rate unit or affordable unit after their 90-day notice to move.
and that doesn't really work well when you look at the fact that the income certification process to qualify for an affordable unit can take up to a year to go through that income certification process. and really, as we are planning to build each individual building, we're going to be identifying specific units to be constructed as market rate units. and other units obviously, the remaining units would be affordable units. and so we want to know that when building the right -- we're building the right types of units and size of units as market rate units especially as we get closer to the end of transitioning people. we don't want to build the unit without the benefit of traffic credit financing, only to turn
it into an affordable unit. if we're going to build a unit at much greater expense as a market rate unit, we want to make sure that's a unit that will be used by someone transitioning into a market rate household. the other factors, the way that the decision process is structured in the thrr assumes that someone would qualify for affordable unit, that it would take an affordable unit, but although the rent would be less if you were in affordable unit in almost all cases, the affordable housing program requirements also might dictate that would you be offered a two-bedroom unit instead of three-bedroom unit that you would be eligible for under the thrr, so it becomes a more complicated decision for the household. as we work with households, the
affordable units for rent will be between 40-80% of ami. and inclusion affordable for sale units will be available to people between 80-120% ami, so it becomes a much more complicated decision, can i qualify for affordable for sale, for rent or do i want the market rate option? and then of course, the people that are pursuing the affordable for-sale units, are eligible for down payment assistance under the thrr, just as individuals who are purchasing a market rate unit from the developer. so that benefit is still available to people. and so some of the issues that
we need to explore here in our implementation and policy guidelines going forward, are how to engage people in the certification process and move them through that process so that we -- when we complete a building, we have people that are eligible to move into units if they qualify. and also, that -- are there any incentives we should consider or the idea of allowing households to split if they can qualify for affordable units is one potential incentives to households, but are there other things to consider that might encourage people to move through the process with us? so those were some of the topics that i wanted to highlight today and we'll continue to discuss at itc and future board meetings. but as we go forward from here,
our initial consultation window with the operation of the resource center, is closed for now, but we're continuing as i said, awrss is continuing to field phone calls and conduct phone interviews. if we get a number of people who request onsite interviews, we may set updates in june to come back and do more interviews to get as close to 100% participation as we can. awrs will be com piling consultation reports, these are letters back to the household, summarizing current household composition, eligibility and benefits options. so we all have something in the file we can go back to. three years from now if there are new consultants and new household members, we have a common point of reference to
start from. as well as we're going to go through some of the frequently asked questions to the relocation consultant and provide additional information back to residents as well. and then as i mentioned with the topics that i just covered, we'll come back to future itc and board meetings for discussion of implementation guidelines for the thrr as we continue to move through the process. >> president tsen: thank you very much, mr. beck, for that report. there was an existing community at treasure island before the dda was signed and before the master plan. so we do have a policy or want to make sure they will be helped, they will get the opportunity, should they choose, it is their choice, as the new housing is being built at levels of affordability, depending on their incomes. so i think that it's excellent
that you've taken a great deal of care for doing this process and making sure that existing tenants on the island know what that process is and that they are educated about the next step. so i really appreciate this report. mr. dunlop? >> director dunlop: thank you. as a resident of the island, i would just like to testify to arws', their care, their courtesy, their professionally and i know there were residents that were difficult to get ahold of, but they kept at it and they finally got me. and my experience has been just, i think you know, the staff found the right fit for both the
island and our needs for the future. so i just wanted to put my two cents in, thank you. >> president tsen: mr. samaha. >> director samaha: this is a mammoth effort and i want to commend everyone who is participating in managing this. i'm sure it has a lot of different areas that are very sensitive. given that it is the current tenants and their lives that are going to be changed because of the new development. but i do have a quick question and as we talk about the word household and what is the actual definition of household as it relates to this? >> so, yeah, the household is the occupants of the unit. now, we typically -- and i
apologize for using acronyms, we typically have been discussing pre-dda households, post dda households and mixed households. and all of these are households that are in units managed by the village at treasure island jon stewart company. one treasure island households have their own transition plan and they'll all be transitioned into replacement housing as it's constructed. but a pre-dda household would be a household where everybody in that unit was occupying a unit on treasure island prior to 2011 when the dda was adopted. and a post-dda household is a household where people have moved to the island since 2011. a mixed household is one that
was established prior to 2011, but perhaps roommates had moved out and others moved in, so there are people that are in the unit who were here in 2011, but others who moved in after 2011. and generally, the people in those mixed households that were here in 2011, are the ones that are entitled to the transition benefit and moving to a future unit. with the exception of spouses, domestic partners, children and registered caregivers. so there are some exceptions where people who moved into the unit after 2011 would still be what we have been referring to as benefit-eligible. but that is kind the discussion of household composition. it's a household, all the people living in a specific unit.
>> director samaha: so basically, if i say three roommates occupied a residence prior to 2011, they would all have to have registered as occupants. is there a master lease holder? >> there was an effort in 2011 to try to do outreach with the villages to make sure that everybody residing in the unit was on the lease. so yeah from the thrr, it's the people that were on the lease in 2011. >> director samaha: so basically, if they were to break up the household, meaning if they're not relatives or spouses and they're let's say three roommates, technically, they're eligible because they were on the lease, each one could then be eligible for a separate unit? >> no, that's what i was trying
to say in the presentation. it's a household benefit, so there is a unit provided for a household. there are households that have expressed an interest in splitting up, either because they're multi-generational households or because there are roommates, non-familiaral relationships, but there are a single replacement unit offered. i think it could benefit both the residents and us and tida if the households members were eligible for separate affordable units to accommodate that. but it would be difficult to provide multiple market rate units to each of the individuals. >> director samaha: would we have enough of the affordable units, if they were to split up?
i don't think we would have enough units to accommodate? >> well, we'll be working with tida and the other affordable future affordable housing develop understand. we'll be constructioning 1866 units. with those unit, we want to transition the existing 250 treasure island households, but our universe here with the village is 203 units. 203 households. so if all of those people wanted market rate units, a portion of those 1866, we would construct as market rate units and transition those into, but we would still have another 1400 units we'll be constructing over time. so if an existing village unit were able to split to form
multiple affordable households, we would have the ability to accommodate that within the total universe of units we're constructing. >> director samaha: ok, thank you. >> director richardson: thank you. and know this process is moving forward, so that's very encouraging. earlier, i had to ask for a graph. i seldom go anywhere in san francisco with someone trying to misrepresent this process. they're saying they don't know what is going on in the development, and that's expected sometimes. here we are with all these exercises going forward, and consultation. again, i want to reiterate, it's easier, it's to comprehend
things when you see chronologically what we're doing here. i would like to see a graph where -- you're going to like what i'm saying later on, because it will be presented when 10-15 households at the end of the project show up and they have not been given the opportunity to something like that, and that's what a lot of the public, some of them are going to do and then we'll have a headache. let's look at your consultation report, which is really great. what would be great is to have the universe. the first obligation is to the pre-dda. that is first and foremost. our obligation here to satisfy them. everything we're took, i want to -- doing, i want to make sure we exhaust everything to say this is the pre-dda, this is where they are, this is their universe, before, because that's the first obligation. you also mentioned that the next
workshop is going to be and reach 50%. i think we need to go back to accommodate the pre-dda. everything that we have, again the workshop is for everyone, again i want to get back to the pre-dda. that's where we are. if we're conducting workshops and there are people in there, that's good for them, but at the end of the day, the data that i'm going to be looking at, the data that all of us here are going to answer to, are going to be the pre-dda. so help us to segregate them and really provide the profile. we only have an "x" number of units in this universe that we need to do, so knowing with the pre-dda, their preference is, before we can even promise
anyone about splitting, i don't know yet how that is going to work, but when i get that, i want to really make sure what we're talking about here. because the land a year ago, we went through the process. we did not talk about splitting then. we talked about certain policies and that is the one that is moving forward. if conditions, all the things that are coming up as a result of that, that is something we need to revisit and maybe see what they are. so i don't want -- again, let's be careful here before we promise anyone that you're a member of this household and you know, we might be able to split you. i don't even know how that is going to work and how that is going to be. but again, i can even give suggestions as to how we can design this graph here, where we sat in january, we conducted all the workshops in the island location or wherever and you're
taking notes, because it's a report. that is going to be great at the end of the day where you have this information. supporting document. and we can put that on the treasure island website. so when people start asking, we can do that. so the consultation to date, the 164 household is completed. what are the remaining households that are still pending, is it because they're not responding, or we haven't finalized? i don't understand. it's just here. 164 out of 204. >> there has been a lot of outreach to people, phone calls, e-mails as well as flyers and letters mailed directly to homes. and i think part of the lag for
some households has been that it's something in the future, and so in all the things that are before us on a day-to-day basis, when we said that the end of april would be the last -- the end of the session, they had 28 consultations on that last day. so you know, announcing that there was an end really brought a lot of people to the table. now that it's closed, i think we'll continue to get those phone calls and we're thinking maybe if we announce we have a couple of dates available in june, that will bring out another chunk of those people that didn't participate to date. we'll do more. >> director richardson: please do certified mailing. again i know, specifically asking those questions, that group are the ones that we're going to have to answer. i would suggest in addition to
the e-mails and phone calls, that you also do certified mail so that we can really prove that we are doing outreach to them because some of them may not be home, i don't know, and they never heard anything, but let's do every kind of outreach so we can demonstrate we did this and that, because the process has to move on. so please incorporate that, thank you. >> president tsen: any other comments from the board? any comments from the public? next item. >> item number 9, future open space operations planning.
>> thank you again, directors. i had mentioned earlier in the report that even as we are doing a lot more things in the field, there are other things we need to be thinking about for the future. i wanted to introduce a new topic of discussion today. this is fairly brief. high level. but kind of laying the groundwork for additional conversations over the next year or two. as you know, we have an extensive open space network on the island and treasure island that are part of the program. you know, a wide variety of uses from the recreation fields to the agricultural farm to the city side park to the wilds as
well as we discussed earlier today, clipper cove boulevard and the parks. and natural areas of the island. even the open space plan calls for potential campground out in the wild area in the future. so a great variety and a great volume of open space, you know, totalling 290 acres in aggregate. in addition, we have the habitat management plan for ybi. which really sets out bana island as a natural area program.
you've heard a number of locally rare and unique vegetation. the first park is scheduled for completion in 2021. we need to be prepared to accept and maintain that park as part of the fiscal year 20-21 budget. two years from now, the budget that we'll be adopting will have the maintenance budget for that new park. and under the dda during the early years of the program, there is a fund that is supposed to come from ticd to hope fund the parks and open space
maintenance while the community facility district is still growing in capacity, which ultimately will fund our maintenance of the parks. but you know, it raises a number of questions for us that we need to plan for in advance of that. certainly these topics that i wanted to introduce today, but that will be continuing conversation on -- as we move forward. the parks on treasure island and yerba buena island are through the agreement with the state lands commission. they are subject to -- most of them, not 100% of the area, but a majority of the area -- subject to a tide lands trust and tida is the trustee under that for the maintenance and
preservation of the spaces. and it is also anticipated these would not be transferred over to rec and park as other open spaces and some other project areas have been, but that tida would be responsible for their operation and maintenance. and in terms of the physical maintenance of the space, it's been presumed that we would contract out a great deal or if not all of those services rather than developing an in-house staff of personnel for maintenance, but that's something we need to discuss and come to conclusion on as we move forward. and then if we are going to contract out for those services, the breadth and depth of those services that we should include. as well as potential conservancy
or stewardship, they have the friends of rec and park. the presidio has a conservancy and do we want to have a nonprofit partner we work with on some of this stuff? those are topics to discuss. as well as as part of the overaall planning for the open spaces, we need to make sure we're providing the physical facilities that are needed to maintain the open spaces. you don't want a gardiner from yerba buena island needing to go back to the end of the island for tools or garbage bags or whatever they need. so the total space of maintenance support functions and their geographic distribution are things we need to further refine. and then the other area is rules. the policies and rules that we should have in place before
opening the parks. again, we have a wide diversity of park spaces in our program, as well as we have natural areas like ybi that we need to manage. and do we -- are the rules we want to develop and adopt under the authority of the tida board, are there other things we may want to seek board of supervisors to grant us legislative authority? for instance, the parks code within the largest city administrative code, you know, not only governs rec and park facilities, but portions of the code are specific to the civic center plaza and so will there be legislative authorities we need to pursue as well in terms of setting up plans and rules for the -- to help us administer
the parks and open spaces as we go forward? today was the introduction of the thoughts, but also setting a framework over the next couple of years, we probably have a lot of ground to cover here. i think conceptually i think of it as a year for us to make decisions on a framework and then a year to put that framework in place, whether that's contracts or legislative changes or other things. so quite a bit for us to discuss in this arena. i just wanted to introduce. >> president tsen: thank you so much, mr. beck. it is such an important thing that the glamour is in building the parks, but in fact, what is most important is the operations and maintenance that the parks continue to be usable, that they're clean, that they're safe. and there is different structures as you mentioned for being able to do that.
if indeed we're going to take on that responsibility. and i am hoping that we will have a learning situation and i think that the city that has done the most in terms of conservancy of parks from a trust or nonprofit or governmental standpoint, actually is new york. and there is much we can learn of their mistakes of their successes there. they have recently put together so many parks and nonprofit structures that help to raise funding for those parks. including central park, it includes battery park, riverside park, hudson yard which is now being completed again in a similar joint venture situation with the private partner. there is brooklyn bridge park,
governor's island, there is many of those open spaces and parks where they've had to grapple with the same questions of maintenance and operations. and most importantly, how do you fund those operations? so i'm hoping -- i'm glad we're starting ahead of time. it's a question that really as we even design, we really have to think about maintenance, because we won't have the capital funds again to redo those facilities. so we have to at this point in time, make sure that we take note of items which will offer lower maintenance costs whenever possible and whatever we design, we have to be considering the long-term operation or maintenance functions as well but i'm glad we're starting it. i think it's a fruitful discussion we'll have in the
next year. it will be a learning situation for us as well. thank you. >> quick question, bob, the city is grappling with maintenance. i know that one of the issues people were talking about during the dissolution of the san francisco agency, in particular maintenance of the parks, and a lot of those still unsettled. and maintenance is expensive. and one of the things you mentioned about maybe the legislation or policy, the board of supervisors, i think we may need to pursue at some point. every few years the city of san francisco embarks on proposition specifically for the parks. you look at the cycles, for
about 20 years now, they've been doing that. for the next round, we think in our head here, if the city is going to entertain that, do we become part of that? because there needs to be government subsidy in some of these -- that's the bottom line. other than that, we're going to be having these 300 acres and all these parks and believe me, tida has a budget, and we need to discuss how we're going to be able to maintain that. i also want to echo commissioner tsen's suggestion, i think we need to look at models. especially the ones in new york and some other places. let's see how they're doing theirs. you know, the signature parks all over the country and then we might be able to study them, bring them here and see where we need to go.
>> president tsen: thank you. >> director giusti: when was the decision made to not have rec and park oversee the maintenance of the parks on the island? >> it kind of predates my time. it's been part of the planning framework, again, given that we're going to be the trustee for the lands. that tida would be responsible for them. but also speaking somewhat to director richardson's question, is that the intention has been through the creation of the community facilities district on the island to establish an independent funding source for the maintenance of these spaces on the island. you know, there have been political changes in terms of the funding that is now
dedicated to rec and park department of the city's budget, but at the time a lot of the planning that was happening here, was you had an already overburdened and underfunded parks system within rec and park, and so for treasure island, the plan has kind of been to set up as independent park system with the cfd generated funding in perpetuity to support the maintenance of the park. so again, for the audience and for others, you know, it bears refreshing that the community facility district that we established last year is established at a high rate for the reimbursement of a portion of the development costs for the island. and then that development
reimbursement carries forward for 42 years and for years 42-99, it will remain as a capital community facilities district to help us generate a reserve for future sea level rise adaptations. and then beyond year 99 and into the future, it converts to a maintenance cfd and becomes a maintenance cfd as a permanent ongoing funding source for the island. part of the logic behind that conversion is capital cfds, the assessment is only allowed to escalate 2% per year as a maximum. so the real value of that will decrease overtime, where as maintenance cfd can be adjusted by a cost of living index. you know, and maintain its value
over time. so once it converts to a maintenance cfd, it should be escalating at a level that provides as a steady stream of funding going forward in the future. >> director giusti: maybe we can look at park alliance, a national parks group, partners with rec and park and public works, maybe we can look into a group like that to partner with us and help us with funding and ideas for the open spaces. >> president tsen: excellent. ok. any other -- >> i have just a confirmation question about when you say assessments, do you mean like dues? that sort of assessment placed on either owners or potentially renters to pay for those types of open space parks? >> yeah. so the -- there is kind of three
components to the financing program on the island. there is tax increment financing, where the city has dedicated for a period of 40 years tax increment flowing from the improved properties to the project. we've also created a community facilities district which some people may be more familiar with as a roost district which is a supplemental assessment above the 1%, roughly 1% property tax that is the base assessment for most properties. so there is that community facility district is a supplemental assessment on top of the 1% that people will pay as part of their property tax bills and those revenues will in back to help reimburse development costs and then pay maintenance costs and operation costs in the future. and then the third component is that there are hoa fees that
homeownership situations where commercial enterprises on the island will pay. those tend to be property-specific, but there are some things that will be the responsibility of an island wide hoa. for instance, we've talked before about the shared public ways. they have specialized finishes and stuff like that, rather than those responsibilities being assigned to just the fronting buildings. those responsibilities will be covered by a master hoa that will help -- that will help distribute those costs across all of the residences on the island. >> director samaha: so when you mention it's owners that will be paying that. do we anticipate any fee for just living on the