tsunami link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c about a 15-minute presentation. as we talk about in our last meeting and no doubt you have heard, the governor has a proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies. this is obviously in the context of massive budget problems at the state level. in 50% of revenue, is spent at the state level on education, and that is kind of the crux of the issue, trying to get more money going back to schools. the governor has a bill before the legislature. it missed passing by a 2/3 vote a couple of weeks ago by a handful of votes, so it could come back. we are just hearing that it may

be brought back by a majority vote. as you know, tida is a redevelopment agency to develop treasure island. we just think it is untenable at this point to move forward under a big development scenario. over the course of redevelopment history, there have been different attempts, successful and unsuccessful, to reduce the amount of money redevelopment agencies get for their programs, which include affordable housing and economic development. we just think with treasure island is, it is difficult to move forward under a development model. that said, we believe we have a model that does work. they have even talked about -- i think that this committee -- over the last couple of months, with regard to rincon hill, we

would do the same thing here. they take a portion of the property tax development when property is taxed and use that to pay for infrastructure and other public improvements within the project. the bonds are secured by the same property tax revenues that come in from the project. there are two key differences. there is less funding available under redevelopment, there is 80 cents on the dollar. it means about $130 million less of revenue into the project. the project, as you recall, is a $1.5 billion project here also, affordable housing is potentially impacted. affordable housing is not a required use and is actually kind of a restricted use of funds. it only can be used if you are building publicly-owned housing or if you have a replacement housing obligation, whereas with development, you are required to set aside 20% of

pretax income and to affordable housing. we are unique in the fact that we do have a replacement housing obligation, so we can use funds for affordable housing. the reason they are a great replacement for redevelopment city-wide or statewide is that you are normally prohibited from using funds for affordable housing. so this chart gives you a quick overview of how property taxes are allocated. normally under redevelopment and under an ifd scenario, so the city gets 65 cents of every dollar for property tax for the general fund, and the rest is distributed to the school district, and the state gets the 25%, and a couple of other taxing entities get the remainder 2.3%. under redevelopment, 80% of that revenue is diverted to redevelopment. that is why the state does not like it, because they lose that 25% share that goes to education. the 65 cents of general fund, so

it is all a -- all local money, is used on the island for infrastructure improvements, so we think there is much less risk in the future. isd bonds are similar to redevelopment. the pledge to pay off bonds similar policy cannot issue the bonds until you actually have development and property tax being generated on the island. same with redevelopment. san francisco is unique in that it gives a much larger share pre-tax revenue than, say, san jose. again, san francisco is unique in its ability to use isd funding. for treasure island, there are two areas where we do not change in two areas where the project does essentially change. there is no change to the physical project. the project would talk about,

the 8000 units, parks and open space remain the same period the eir we're doing will remain the same. the transaction structure also unchanged. tida remains -- it does not remain a redevelopment agency. it becomes a non-profit public benefit corporation that was created before it was given the powers. it would still enter into the the development agreement with the developer, much the way it did under development. the two major changes, because this is a city project and not a development project -- the land use authority will be housed trough -- house within the planning department. projects like mission bay, the authority for land use decisions is made by the redevelopment agency. city projects, obviously, the decisions are made by planning, which would then become a city project, planning would make the decisions, but the zoning would remain the same.

it would just be housed in the planning code. as we talked about the tax increment, it gets reduced by about $130 million. most of the project budget is not discretionary, so improving the island seismically and structurally, adding new infrastructure -- roads, sewers, water pumps, etc. -- paying the navy $50 million, and then a participation payment -- we cannot reduce those as a result of this reduction, so we looked at certain areas. open space, community facilities, transportation, and housing, as potential reductions to make up for this gap in the project created by the loss of redevelopment. our recommendation, after a lot of consideration in talking with stakeholders, is to reduce the affordable housing component in a project to 25% -- from 25% to 30%. this is a reduction of 400 units, so the affordable

housing, instead 2500 units would be 2000 units of 8000. we maintain our commitment for 435 units, serving homeless and formerly homeless individuals. we maintain the 5% inclusion neri, but basically reduced to the general affordable housing component of the project by 5%. we would do that only under the provision that additional money was generated, and we intend to go back to the state and seek legislation to try to get back some of the shares to make this look more like redevelopment, that we would restore first the housing back to the 30%. we are aware we could get it above the 25%, given the funding we get from the state. it is not sure what that would look like. again, the 5600 market the units would be increased. the 2400 affordable units would be reduced, mostly coming from the authority, affordable housing, which are kind of the general affordable housing we

have on the island. the reason -- the reduction in affordable housing kind of makes the most sense is it is the biggest component of the public benefits to the project. we are spending over 25% of the $1.5 billion in project costs and revenues on affordable housing. cards on the open space as well as transportation all below 10%. second, for every dollar reduction in affordable housing, you would actually get a $3 benefit back to the project, and the reason is you convert and affordable housing block to a market rate lock, which allows you to get revenue from that back into the project as well as generate additional revenue from the project. we also think it is probably the most likely we would be most successful in going back to the state to try to get affordable housing money back into the project. again, the physical project remains the same. our agreement with the navy and state lands agency remains the

same. the only difference would be this reduction in affordable housing with the chance to get back up to 35 percent said. we do intend to seek legislative changes to change the law to make them easier to use for large scale projects. allowing the general use of affordable housing and perhaps requiring a certain percentage for affordable housing, much like redevelopment does, and we are working with affordable housing advocates, affordable housing providers to craft these changes to state law as well as our redevelopment agency and our public finance folks here in the city. we look at a couple of other options to get to the same result and actually try to minimize the impact to affordable housing. i will just show you three here. we are not recommending them, but they are options that we can discuss and consider. one is reducing the inclusion very percentage to 0.

remember, it is currently 5%. this would allow you to get 400 units of affordable housing back. you would lose the $300 of affordable inclusion a units, but gained back -- you did did lose the 300 of affordable inclusion their units but gained back 400. the second option is to eliminate other portions of the public benefits on the project, such as the northern wild and sports park. that is the kind of less improve park area to the north of the island on the project. as well as cut the transit subsidy by 1/3 of the $10 million savings and reduce the community benefits subsidy by about 50%, which is about a $6 million reduction. that would give us the ability to get back a parcel and another 100 units of affordable

housing. again, we do not think this is the recommended cut. it degrades the livability of the island. but we wanted to put it out there as a possible reduction. the third alternative is combining the two, which gets you back to 2200 affordable units or 2715%, basically taking the inclusion area off the table as well as taking those reductions. this chart shows you what that means as far as the total affordable program. moving on to the transaction quickly, we saw this before. this is kind of how the transaction is organized. there is a disposition and development agreement that tida interest into with the developer. there are other plans that attach to that. as well as some stand-alone documents, there was a bit development plan, a development agreement design review process as well as our agreement with

the navy. all those remain the same, except we replaced the redevelopment plan with, as i discussed, the special use district, which is housed in the planning codes. the planning commission would have more jurisdiction over the project. the land use plan the ec remains the same here again, for reference, the northern wells and sports bar are in the northeastern portion of the project. it is the biggest part, but probably the least improved, and that would be the one we would consider cutting if the policy makers, you, and others were not comfortable with the reduction in affordable housing we are recommending. again, the land use change will document the changes in the special use district, but the zoning, which is included in the design for development document, remains the same. i think it is just referred to in the planning code. supervisor mar: i'm going to have to ask you to try to make this really breathe and try to wrap up.

>> we have two more. we're going to talk quickly about sea level rise and touch on our jobs program. we have about five more minutes. i am going to introduce our postal engineer on the projects. supervisor mar: ok. very briefly if you can. and yes, there is only four or five slides. a couple of items on the design philosophies, in light of the number of articles that have emerged in the newspapers. sea level rise -- overall, our approach has been to look at the literature and use the most conservative estimate of sea level rise that is in the literature. about 80 years out. this figure encapsulates the entire approach, which is billed the pads and the structures high -- build the pads and structures high, have lots of space along the perimeter itself, improve the perimeter, and have a funding strategy that will be used towards adaptation strategies in the future.

an example of one of the adaptation strategies along the western shore line shows the scale of the project and then the one below that shows as and in portion -- shows a zoomed in portion. several options exist. again, very small in the scheme of the scale of the project itself, in short addition to the sea wall would for much by several years worth of seawall protection. in terms of tsunami, again, in light of the recent occurrence of sonatas, we have not included that in the design criteria for the project. briefly, some of these are caused by portion plates going under a continental shelf, which releases energy. created our particular structure in california, which does not

allow the production or propagation, if you will, of tsunami is because of the nature of the fault. there is no article displacement. they are parallel to each other. we are, however, vulnerable to distant sources from alaska and japan. that has been documented. but again, there is only a four- hour time window that residents here would be aware of when an earthquake has occurred. the particular morphology, if you will, of san francisco bay does not allow the propagation of a wall of water because of the restriction posed by the golden gate itself. so it comes in as a very fast -- very fast tide. to summarize the guidance given by fema and the california emergency management agency -- we went above and beyond.

over 1000 years of modeling work performed to include tsunamis back, and the numbers, you can see those. we also recognize that low probability events could occur. that has been published recently, and the maps for san francisco bay. we recognize the those are for emergency scenario planning, rather than for design. they are significantly beyond the standard of practice compared to earthquakes. the last thing i would say is that structures are modern, code-based designs, so they are not vulnerable to tsunami damage. >> good afternoon, supervisors. office of economic and workforce development. i am going to briefly present the agreement, the johnson equal

opportunities program. all aspects of the problem that speak to the extraordinary level of community benefits that will be provided to maintain the proposal you heard earlier. the treasure island homeless development initiative, a coalition of a neighborhood organizations, going to 1994 providing housing, service, and economic development opportunities for formerly homeless individuals and families -- the center exceed the city entered into an agreement in 1996 where the board of supervisors elected to follow a lot regarding the local rebel and agency to assist homeless persons. the current agreement updates that 1996 agreement. the housing component, which is the bulk of the agreement, was informed by multiple city agencies, including the mayor's office of housing, the redevelopment agency, and hsa. in short, the program consists of 435 new units. tida will provide $50,000 per

unit for replacement units. there is a no cost as well as text and for men and other funding as necessary. the developments will also use leveraged sources to produce homes for extremely low-income households earning no more than 30% of the area median income. as you can see from this site plan, the sites in orange will be generally distributed throughout the project. moving into the jobs and equal opportunity program, the project is expected to create 2000 annual construction jobs, and up to 3000 permanent jobs. one of the special requirements to the original agreement with regards to the city's original employment and contracting community into a ti-specific program. that applies to nearly all employers, in both construction and permanent, as well as kids -- gives them a continuing right -- priority right to service

contracts and economic development opportunities the employee -- employee -- that employ homeless individuals. the target 25% said of the judge to formerly homeless and economically is the benefits to individuals and 50% to san francisco residents. targeting 41% of the total dollar value at sbe's. moving into the community facilities plan, it recognizes the need to provide places and facilities that support the social, cultural, and recreational needs that type a diverse community together. with that in mind, the plan was to go out with input from existing providers, including updated housing population demographic projections, needs assessment, trends analysis, and evaluation of existing facilities and input from a consultant who has worked on such projects as the hamilton

air force base. i will just move to the recommended program, which summarizes the recommended program under five different categories -- public services or public safety, the community spaces, community services and amenities, educational and cultural amenities, and open space and recreational facilities. you can see the recommended square footage, the car location, and the proposed location. finally, you can see on this next slide, the developer was the obligation, which totaled a combination of 63,000 square feet or $17 million, not including 300 acres of parks and open space. that concludes my remarks. we are glad to take any questions. supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no questions, is there anything else? thank you so much for the presentations and this second hearing. i should say that i do have concerns of such a significant reduction in the affordable housing units.

i'm hoping that you still are looking at -- i know you give us several options, but ways to spread that out so that may be open space and transportation and other community benefits are considered in order to protect some of the affordable housing units, but i know you are already in communication with supervisor kim, whose district this is an evolving, and others, so i appreciate that effort. we have a number of speakers before us. -- whose district this is in balding. -- this is involving. we have a number of speakers before us. [reading names]

>> how long do we get? supervisor mar: two minutes per person, and i will just ask people to be as short as possible. >> good afternoon. i just want to say that we are supportive of the agreement, and the job plan is an exciting job plan because it gives opportunity to all sorts of jobs speakers from people with significant barriers to employment to people in the construction and provides both permanent and short-term construction jobs. it really is a great jobs plan that we are looking forward to implementing, and unfortunately, a lot of stuff that happened at the state, the elimination of redevelopment has made the project have to rethink some of the goals that we have been working in for a long time. sell in trying to scramble to try to figure out how we save this amazing project and really have the financing, there has

been this proposal to have 25% affordable housing goal. in terms of our perspective, we are working with the project to try to make sure that the language in the housing plan is really strong about when there is changes, and hopefully, there will be, and they will be positive -- changes that they will be able to increase the housing back up to 30%. right now, there is 2000 affordable housing units, thousands of jobs on the table, years of planning. so we are confident that we will be able to restore and recapture some of those lost units. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> let me talk about the infrastructure financing district. this has been created because redevelopment will stop getting

its funds shortly. in creating this, supervisors, you need to pay attention to those segments of the population that are most adversely impacted. so when it comes to affordable housing, when it comes to rental housing, puc no movement, then wherever our -- wherever are the culprits that are coming with this model, they have to be taken to task. it is as simple as that. i have been dissipated in over 40 meetings. the mental component was removed. if you looked carefully at treasure island, they are doing the same thing. on another level, you supervisors should pay attention to the tsunami. what ever the gentleman said.

anyway you look at it, treasure island is going to get a tsunami. if he says he understands how mother nature works and that a tsunami cannot impact treasure island, then the gentleman is in for a big shock. that is a man-made island. it is sinking 2 inches of every year, and if you get an evaluation from the u.s. geological survey, you will see that what i'm saying is the truth. supervisors, you represent the constituents. you need to do your duty, your diligence. you sold us out, and do not sell us out again. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we are strong backers of this project. urbanistic lee, it represents exactly what cities should be doing.

we are deeply saddened at the loss of the affordable housing. that is awful to watch, and it is awful to watch the economy take out of projects that we care about. problem is no one knows what is going to happen to be development. is it going to be executed or not? we think the project has to move ahead. if it does not, my gut says it will stop. it will go away. last week at the planning commission, doug shoemaker had an earlier idea that should circumstances improve down the road, there might be a way to give affordable housing first call on first resources. that said, the project should not pay the price.

you should everything can to move it forward. this is a great one. thanks. >> hi, representing the treasure island family center. we are a nonprofit community family center located on treasure island. we have been located here for about 11 years now. the interesting to sailing to promote positive activities in their lives. we came to say that we support the project and we hope it moves forward. it is a really exciting time with america's cup coming to sentences appeared for us, it is an important opportunity to open sailing to all participants from all demographics, and the city, the department of children,

youth, and families, and other partnerships that we have with the boys and girls club foundation here we have been really good things in the last few years to get students involved with sailing. we also had a really good partnership with the developers in this project, and we're looking forward to hopefully getting this push forward so we can have a new center and also provide all these opportunities for the students and children in san francisco. supervisor mar: thanks for the great work with the children in san francisco, especially the most low-income and bulova population. i called a list of people. please keep coming forward began. >> i would like to say good afternoon to this committee. -- please keep coming forward if you can. >> i would like to say good afternoon to this committee. i am here with offices and students who reside on the island. i would like to say also with the residency requirement in place, i want this community to know that there are over 400 young men and women living and

training at the number one rated job corps center in the nation today, which would represent a future work force if the project should go forward. it is our hope that we form a lasting, symbiotic relationship. i would like the students to say a word, if you may. >> i think that if you guys do go forward with the building, i think you guys should go would mean building because it is kind of catching on. it is good for the environment. i think that a lot of tourists go there and then go to the golden gate bridge, and they take pictures. if you guys built more, there would be more money because more tourists would go there. you could have restaurants and you could have restaurants and grocery stores.