to figure out. we have built in that some -- built in that scenario, where we can go back and get an increment. but we have also provided in our housing plan the ability to buy back affordable housing novels. if, for instance, a citywide bond was passed, that would give us additional housing. there are lots of things available that we could buy back to get us back to that 30%. there are two ways we built into the development to allow us to capture back some of the affordable housing. supervisor cohen: this goes back to the state legislation. to me, building off what supervisor mar is trying to narrow down -- is there a metric that is used? huddling quantify whether or not state legislation is successful? of what point will we know we are moving in the right direction? >> ultimately, we will know when

legislation is passed that will enable us to capture some of the state share of the increment. that is certainly what we intend to do. we are writing legislation now with the mayor's office community development agency and the mayor's office of housing. we are looking at the bills. we are writing legislation that would allow us to capture some of that increment. but other cities and redevelopment agencies are doing the same thing. it is a little difficult to predict what is going to happen at the state level. supervisor cohen: are there other tools are means we can use to capture that money so we can meet the 30% affordable housing? >> like i said, if there is additional funds outside of the tax increment -- if a bond is passed, or the state provides additional funding outside of tax increments, that could be used also to recapture some of

these under the affordable housing level. chairperson mar: think you. please continue. >> just a couple other items on the change. there is no change to the physical project. basically, the impact remain the same. the same level of commercial activity. the transaction structure remains unchanged. tihda would not be acting as a redevelopment agency in this instance, but as a city agency. it would remain as a local authority, with powers given to it by the state. the land use administration would change. whereas under the redevelopment scenario it would have been a redevelopment agency like the san francisco redevelopment

agency, with land use authority and control over all development in the island -- seeing that we are not doing this through redevelopment, the planning commission would retain most of the jurisdiction through future development -- construction of buildings, etc.. non-trust property would fall under the jurisdiction of the planning department. chairperson mar: can i ask a question was raised at the hearing? how can the public be assured there would be strong accountability of the structures within this unusual redevelopment ifp structure? will we have strong public transparency likely would after a normal development? >> tihdi is a commission. there is oversight by the board of supervisors.

the contracts entered after a certain level are approved by the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors would have to authorize the issuance of future ifp's. there is some accountability as with other city agencies. another issue that came up was whether the bonds are riskier than redevelopment bonds. they are basically the same funding you would buy if you want redevelopment bonds. actually, the bonds cannot be issued until the property tax increment is coming in. investors to invest in ifp bonds are investing in the same stream of income as those who invest in redevelopment bonds, future tax revenue. it is still risk here than tax increment bonds.

there is no recourse to the general fund. the bond holders can only count on those residents for tax increments to pay for those bonds. our recommendation to bridge the gap is a reduction on affordable housing, with the ability to get it back. we talked about reducing the inclusionary housing level, cutting back on parks and transportation subsidies, but we think those start to degrade the livability of the island, both for people living in market rate units as well as affordable housing. this is kind of the comparison of the resulting development under ifp versus redevelopment. we have the same number of tihdi units. we have additional market-rate units. we have a decrease in authority

units. these are the vladislav to changes we are going to look to get from the state to make ifp's more usable for these large- scale development projects in to be able to capture some of the lost cousin. this is some of the difference in the bonds. the future schedule -- we are before you next week for approval of the transaction documents, and also before the budget committee on the following week to look at the transaction documents. these are the items that will be before you and that were before the planning commission last week. with that, and happy to answer any questions. chairperson mar: let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public

that would like to speak? please come forward if you would like to speak. >> i was going to speak on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition, but i have decided to speak only for myself. for 25 years, i have worked as a geologist, including as an environmental contractor for region nine. i have sat through a lot of the presentations on treasure island. some of my impressions of what i have seen -- on the question of tsunami, the idea that treasure island, inside the bay, is subject to catastrophic danger to tsunami is silly. there is no evidence of tsunami is inside the bay area in the geological record. it is something very simple. there is no evidence of it. a big one would look like a high tide inside the day.

it is not an issue. on the question of sea level rise, sadly, we are losing the war on this. sea levels are rising. what they have done in the design of this project is state of the art. what you are quick to see more and more in -- is that protect are going to engineer for rising sea levels. it is a sad fact now. on the question of such flexibility, a lot of very fancy engineering and building techniques are going to be employed on treasure island. maybe the only question would be have any of them gotten their calculations wrong. is there anything wrong with the engineering that are proposing here? it is state of the art, as far as i can tell. it involves raising the level of the land, and a lot of expensive engineering techniques that are going to make this very well

engineered. the moral of the story is that good engineering and modern building practices trump old ones. japan is a living laboratory, and you can see this again and again. new buildings respond better than the old ones. parts of downtown san francisco are at lower elevation, and filled, without reinforcement techniques that are using here. they are at much higher risk of seismic issues. they are at much higher risk of sea level rise. there have been no measures taken to protect them. any of the other shaking issues -- wouldn't our energies be better focused on the- populating downtown san francisco, areas that much higher risk than treasure island? barring that, start to take the measures in downtown san francisco that would improve that area. this is state of the art. it points the direction that these types of projects inevitably are going to have to go. thank you.

chairperson mar: sherri williams, francisco dacosta, william lazarus. >> sherry williams, with the treasure island homeless development initiative. it is a very difficult decision to say we are going to support going from 30% to 25%. but the project did not decide to eliminate redevelopment after 10 years of planning and being at the press does of approval. i think it speaks to the resilience of the project that there were able to find the solution. the fact that with changes to ifd we could possibly gain the units back -- there was also a point that rich didn't mention. they actually moved one of the affordable housing projects to phase two. that would give us five years to be able to recapture the units.

it is not like right out of the gate there is anything lost. we have time to recapture them. i think that is really important to mention. the fact that there are still 2000 affordable housing units for hundred of which are set aside for homeless -- 2000 affordable housing units, up 400 400 of which are set aside for homeless, is incredible. we have letters of support from our members which include the boys and girls club of san francisco, catholic charity, mercy housing, mission hiring hall, rubicon programs, swords to plowshares, and others. this is about understanding the difficult choices before us. we are still looking forward to this project, moving forward.

chairperson mar: thank you. i will also call eddie ahn and walter paulson. >> my name is francisco dacosta. i have been involved in treasure island since 1991, when my former boss became part of the cdo event from treasure island. i have empirical data regarding all the buildings and the land over there. i know there is some fanatical support here about people saying this and the other. but the bottom line is we saw this in new orleans. we saw this in japan. we see this wherever there are similar issues about compression. we also saw this in the marina. what we need to do, first of all, is not to rush into this

like we did during the holidays. we had a meeting that concluded at about 11:20 in the night. the other thing i have requested is to provide nonprofits -- and i have participated in this deliberation for the longest time -- so that our university students can evaluate every element of this project. the navy should do the cleanup. i would suggest we build the necessary fortifications to save the lives of the people who are there right now. i participated in other cda's and they never kept their promise. hunters point eliminated rental units. they neutralized the community

fund. the cannot be trusted. that is my subjective opinion. what we need here is some deliberation about the financing aspect. the infrastructure financing district has not been tried or tested on such a large scale. we just cannot take it for granted. what we have here is a moving target with a lot of amendments , the documentation that is not transparent. you notice the same three planning commissioners who were against hunters point were against treasure island. we need to get a bigger group of planners on our side. i know the developer wants to make money. but for some consistency, we

have to provide good affordable housing. we did this at the presidio with swords to plowshares. i know what i am talking about. i am in talks with the united states geological survey. i suggest that you get the latest map and perhaps bring an expert from the u.s. geological society so they can explain to you about the seismic conditions. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. a lot of projects have been around for a long time. there was the library and playground expansion voted on 10 years ago. the executive park planning process started six years ago. this is the tops -- 18 years ago, when the navy announced there were going to leave treasure island. there has been a process of developing a plan to rebuild this island and make it a home

to thousands of people, to make a commercial hub of employment again. this is not follow land. since the world's fair in 1929 and the navy moving in in 1941, thousands of people have lived and worked on this island safely every year. thousands of vehicles a day on or off treasure island. we have an opportunity now to remake the island into a very positive experience environmentally, sustainability, and safely for people who work there, through transit improvements, congestion pricing, parking limitations, and the seismic rebuilding of the island infrastructure. this time has come. we have a great opportunity. last year, the key vote of the

board was in the approval of hunters point. this year's key vote on economic development will be the approval of the treasure island plan. a city of 49 square miles has had the opportunity -- three of them, over the last 20 years. this gives us a unique opportunity to grow and extend our city, our population, and our economy. this plan is ready. we urge you to approve this. let's get on with this. thanks very much. >> i am with a bright line defense project, and san francisco's local hiring law requires local hiring in every contract. it guarantees union wage construction jobs. this uppers' opportunities to

local san franciscans to break cycles of poverty and discrimination. development on treasure island would guarantee thousands of construction jobs over the life span of this project. san franciscans should have access to these jobs. in past hearings, questions have been raised whether local hiring would be incorporated into the development. we have been happy to hear that it will be incorporated into the development. once we look at the development agreement, we would love to see local hiring be implemented. thank you. chairperson mar: mr. paulson? >> i am walter. ♪ you got treasure island on a string sitting above the water

wrap the string around your fingers what a city, what an island fix it up so fine city island is a beautiful thing city, you hold the string your silly if you ever let this play scope's -- this place go you have the city island on a string, sitting on a rainbow wrap the string around your city figgers -- fingers what an island what a city what a place ♪ chairperson mar: thank you. mr. brooks? >> eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and our city. at last week's planning

commission hearing, we reiterated our strong opposition to this project and that the eir should be recirculated. we were joined by the sierra club and others in that same call for the eir to be recirculated. the reason for this is not only the past things i have seen -- i have said about c level dangers, but the main reason now is the massive financial and governments changes in this project. these changes have happened all within the last month. the have caused staff to completely rewrite this whole thing in the last month, notwithstanding the claim that the product is not changing. the fact that they are going to have 20% less financing and do not know whether they can get that number back up from the state not only affects local hiring, not only affects affordable housing, but you heard them say today that the

future preparation for sea level rise depends on future financing. if we are going to start this project with 25% less financing and no guarantee it is going to be there, that has made this plan to go from scary to incredibly frightening, and probably very dangerous to potentially bankrupting the city and the s.f. puc that is going to have to do electricity and water works and things like that. this thing has become scary. the staff -- i have watched all the hearings in the last month. the stories that are telling have changed every time. we need to pull this back, send it out for another eir. by the time that process gets done, maybe they can verify they have a better funding from the state. without that guarantee, this thing is a catastrophe waiting to happen if we let it go crazy.

i will close with this, just to give you an example of the pressure this change is putting on staff and how it is changing the way they and the developers present things at hearings. at the sfpuc, commissioner torres asked the lead environmental engineer, "is this area vulnerable to a potential tsunami?" the engineer responded with the same fiction that mr. ohen just put out, that we all know is not true. he responded know. he just said no. he said it is protected by the golden gate. any of you that know about tsunami is no that is absolutely false. a recently discovered that the cascaida subduction zone could

create a tsunami that is tens of meters in height. chairperson mar: the last part i have is --card i have is chris meany. >> i am with treasure island community development. we are obviously coming to the end of a long process here. there have been 18 years of work, as others have said here, at the federal, state, and local level. truth be told, the work before you today has only been going on in this intensity for about seven years. during that time, there has been an incredible amount of engineering and work on the project, because not just the city wants it, but going through that process requires a deep love all of vetting -- a deepr er level of vetting and

would normally be required of a project. a whole lot of engineering has been done. a series of. views have been conducted. over the course of the seven years, many of those engineering reports and peer reviews have been discussed in public. but because it is spread out over such a long time, as we get to the excitement of the end of the project, sometimes we forget. but as you think about the project and you have these issues, we would be happy to respond to any of those. but the engineering was done and peer reviewed. there is not a project i think that has come before you in a long time that has been detailed and studied as much as this. we all regret that the governor has taken aim at affordable housing. we all regret that. what we have an opportunity to

do together is to build a great neighborhood for san francisco, one with a minimal -- and i stress minimal -- 25% affordability. we can work to get that up. we need the state's help to do that. this is a great project. i hope you find you can support it. i want to assure you that the work has been done. it has just been done over such a long time that as we get to the end, a few things get lost. we would be happy tosupervisor e else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i have some. there were some considerations raised during the planning commission hearing boat -- hearing on the density, 20,000

more people, and i was is wondering, it is the analysis adequate? i know that is not the purpose of our conversation today, but i think commissioner olague raised some concerns. >> they were fully vented in the eir, and the commission did certify that eir with a lot of that analysis. the one to one parking, there will be an impact on the bridge. we want to minimize the amount of cartographic, and yet, we believe, to make things a viable project, you have to provide at least a minimum of three to one parking.

we think at a minimum, there has got to be one to one parking. market octavia or eastern neighborhood or downtown, where we have got a lower parking ratio. there are obviously other places where people can park beyond a new developments. other parking, other buildings outside. hear, we have truly got this. people cannot rely to go to the next neighborhood to park a car, but we are looking to maintain that one to one parking.

again, it is necessary to attract families and others to the island, and also tried to minimize these. these are the other mechanisms we have talked about. subsidizing the transit service. >> thank you so much. other questions, colleagues? >> i know on may 2, we have a number of items. is it nine different items that are on our agenda for the next meeting? so, colleagues, can we move this forward, continued to the call of the chair? without objection. [gavel] thank you. ms. somera, is there any other business before us? clerk somera: no. supervisor mar: thank you. then meeting adjourned.

[gavel]