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 grocery stores. i mean, it is a good opportunity. >> i'm from the treasure island job corps, and the treasure island project will open up our jobs. >> good afternoon. i'm excited for the project, and i think that it would open up a lot of opportunities for jobs and housing for the younger generation. i just wanted to say thanks for the time.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. we are very much in favor of this project moving forward. there are very many positive aspects of the project, from the sustainability, the affordable housing, the immediate jobs this project will create, and the open space. with regard to the affordability, the affordable housing, i think 25% is still really a very good number. i think it is a number that the city of san francisco can be very proud of. out of the 420 acres of development, 300 acres of designated open space, and out of the 300 acres, 40 acres have been set aside -- approximately 40 acres, four regional sports fields and local sports fields. i think this is so important to the city, to treasure island, the city. the city is in dire need of quality playing field at the

moment, and with the kids in san out for is more quality playing fields, thereby alleviating injury to kids and adults alike, so i urge you to move this project forward. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i work with catholic healthcare west at st. mary's medical center and st. francis memorial hospital, and i'm here to tell you that we are working closely with the treasure island development folks to determine best options for provision of health care to the residents and visitors at treasure island. we are happy to look forward to what we can do to create a healthy community on treasure island. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak? >> thank you, supervisors. carpenters' local 22. obviously, this project is due to our heart, but also, to the

people that came up year earlier, god bless their hearts. they live here and work here. with that, let's just keep them moving. let's keep it rolling. and let's see what shakes out, but we offer the best for your support. thank you very much and have a good day. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak from the public? public comment is closed. thank you for testifying. we have another information system coming of quickly within the land use committee, but thank you so much. could you please call the next two items together? >> what action would you like taken on the last item? supervisor mar: excuse me? >> continue to the call of the chair for the hearing? supervisor mar: yes, if there is no objection, we will move it to be -- continue to the call of the chair. thank you. please call items four and five. >> item four, a hearing on the effects of golden gate national

recreation area's draft off leash dog policy, and item five, a resolution opposing the golden gate national recreation area's alternative for draft off leash dog management. supervisor wiener: thank you, chairman. i want to thank everyone, both in the chamber today as well as in the overflow room, for taking the time to be here today and to take time away from your busy schedules and your jobs and families and life to be here for this issue. i know that it is not convenient to come to city hall in the middle of the day, so thank you. we have limited public space in san francisco and a lot of different uses of those spaces. [bell rings] supervisor wiener: am i done? [laughter] ok, now we can go home.

any time we have a discussion about how we utilize our limited public spaces, those discussions are controversial and results in passionate views on the subject. but we owe it to the people of san francisco to engage in these important discussions. many san franciscans have dogs. dogs need outdoor exercise, for recreation, and dog owners need access to outdoor space with their dogs. we have seen in san francisco city parks the conflict that some time occurs between those with dogs and those without dogs in terms of the allocation of our public spaces. each of my colleagues, i am confident, has personal experience with these kinds of discussions and disputes. one of the things that lessens the tension in our city parks is the existence of ggnra. it is beautiful.

one of the true gems of the city, and the national park service should be commended for doing such a stellar job in maintaining it has a beautiful and attractive place. we all know, with everyone's opinion that over the past number of decades, san franciscans have relied on cards of -- parts of ggnra to walk their dogs. i think that we can all agree that the proposal will have an impact on the ability of dog owners to access these lands in the way that they have been accustomed to doing. i have serious concerns about the proposal, which is why i call for this hearing and why i introduced a resolution. i am concerned about its impact on the ability of dog owners to bring their dogs to break open spaces for recreation, and i am concerned about the impact on

our city parks it dogs loose access, whether in part or in whole -- if dogs lose access to ggnra. i think we can have a ggnra that cares for its natural values and that also allows full recreational access to people and dogs. we do not need to view this as an either/or. this needs to be a situation where everyone wins. so we are going to -- this is really a two-part hearing. the first part will focus on the ggnra proposal, and after that is done, we will then talk about the possible regulation and permitting of commercial dog walkers in city parks. before we proceed, if any of my colleagues have any remarks? great.

before we get to public comment, we have a few presentations from different perspective so we can set the tone. i really want to thank ggnra for coming today. i very much appreciate that. i am glad the federal government did not shut down, at least for now. i want to say thank you. we are going to start with the ggnra. mr. dean. >> think you, supervisors, for the opportunity to come before you. i and the superintendent of the golden gate national recreation area. i hope to speak to you today and bring clarity for something that

is controversial. i should say at the outset that i am also a dog owner. my dog's name is ranger, of course. i understand and appreciate this issue. just a little bit of context, i am not sure if you're seeing the slides, golden gate national recreation area is a national area established in 1972 to protect the natural, seen it, and cultural values of the park. the second paragraph shows that it was set up to preserve public use and enjoyment. we have the recreational aspect and it talks about protecting the park in its natural setting.