as far as highway impact ago, those are cumulative. they will not happen because of the executive park. they may happen if candlestick point is built. but there are cumulative solutions that will be paid for. the highway is not something we have any control over. we have no say. we would not in any conceivable way impact that. we have worked hand in hand with the planning staff.

we reelect the future of the 49ers was terribly important to the city -- we realized the future of the forty-niners was terribly important to the city. i have an answer to the question about development density. chairperson mar: if you could address that, thank you. >> to sum up where we are now and where we would be after this plan amendments are approved, we can come back to a specific project. right now, on the 78 acres of the executive part, there is permanently built or approved and under construction the actual construction -- it is current -- it is more current than the slides you saw. there are 1220 residential units, 700,000 square feet of office space in the three office

buildings you saw. there are 17,400 square feet of retail and restaurant space. all of the development i have described will continue, with exception of the three office buildings, which will be ultimately demolished and replaced by housing.

it will be a primarily residential area, with 1600 additional residential units and about 73,000 gross square feet of retail. it is designed as a community center. it is the hole in the doughnut. we are going to try to provide the sense of community that some say is missing a. thank you for the indulgence. -- some say is missing now. thank you for the indulgence. >> supervisors, my name is claude everhart. i was reminded when i came to the building today of my first field trip as a child, which was to city hall as a kindergartner. that was my first exposure to city hall. i have been kicking around since before i had these gray hairs.

this project has been a model of community participation and community involvement. 30 years ago, we first started with this project. we of discussed having a community advisory committee. that involved all of the neighborhoods at that time -- bayview, hunters point, little hollywood, and visitation valley. we have added neighborhoods to the community advisory committee, including the executive parkmerced and the hester her its neighbors. -- including the executive heights neighbors.

there have been 75 community meetings are hearings. i have gone to every neighborhood association and organization in the visitation valley, a little hollywood, bayview, hunters point. we started this back in 2005 and we are still coming. i would submit that of all the projects you have coming before you you will not find a project that has this much community support and such a tremendous amount of community opposition. there are some things that people still have some issues with. but this project is almost universally supported in the southeast sector of san francisco. it is time for us to move forward. we appreciate your support.

>> i am the chair of the green party sustainability working group. when you widen car transportation access, it does bring up transportation concerns. this neighborhood is already inundated with too much car and truck exhaust. i am not here to speak in favor or opposition of the project, but just making certain it is being made properly accessible to mass transit and that the perhaps look into not making it such an auto corridor. if you are still working in transportation, those would be concerns.

thanks. >> are there further public comments? chairperson mar: seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor cohen: i ask that this item the continued to the call of the chair. chairperson mar: without objection. are there questions colleagues have? supervisor weiner: a tweet -- so we are not going to vote on this? chairperson mar: it is a hearing. supervisor weiner: it is a hearing only. chairperson mar: it has been moved to continue to the call of the chair. i am calling to ask mr. snyder to ask about the transportation plan.

there will be an additional number of residential units and commercial space. what is the transportation plan? has that been developed by the planning department? >> i guess i would describe the transportation plan in three components. the big move for transportation is that we are providing a new street grid to allow a greater sense of permeability through from the hollywood in from visitation valley, through the neighborhood so you are not faced with a parking lot. as a part of the candlestick improvements, which this project is not immediately responsible for, a big component of what they are doing is bus rapid transit. that facility is being accommodated by our zoning to

assure there is not room -- to assure there is enough room for rapid transit. as this project has evolved over the years, a shuttle program that is part of their transportation management -- part of their medications -- would be maintained and increased as more development comes on line. chairperson mar: without objection, we are continuing to the call of the chair. our last item is item four. >> hearing on the treasure island/yerba buena island development project. chairperson mar: thank you. i know we have mr. rich hill from the department of economic development. a long hearing in front of the

planning commission, i believe, on thursday. so this is a continuation of our hearing on treasure island. >> good afternoon. rich hill, office of economic and workforce development. this being our third presentation before you -- as you have noted, supervisor, the planning commission and tihdi met jointly last thursday and approved the final documents of this project. we will file those at the board, where you will be asked to consider it next week. i want to give you a quick overview on the project again to highlight some of the issues that were brought up in planning, many of which we have been studying the over the last five years or so, but just to highlight them, since you'll be

hearing from them in the coming week. this is a complete redo of treasure island, creating a unique san francisco neighborhood with 8000 homes, 500 motel rooms, 450,000 square feet of retail space, and a transportation hub, 100,000 square feet of office space, and two-thirds of the island used for open space. community benefits include a housing, additional jobs, and economic development. the project will be implemented in four phases over 15 to 20 years, depending on economic conditions. this is the land use plan you have seen before, with a transit-commercial court at the southern end of treasure island, and housing radiating from there. the public process was started back in 1983, and planning began

in 2003, after developers were selected. in 2006, the board of supervisors endorsed a term sheet. in 2010, a revised term sheet was approved by the board. since staff endorsement in 2010, we have held over for the community meetings and public hearings to talk about the project, including hearings before tihdi and the planning commission, primarily focused on transition housing plans, as well as meetings here and before other commissions. that is in addition to 250 public meetings since the planning commission began. there have been a couple of changes. some were made in response to public comment. those include the retention of

the chapel that exists on the island, mainly from comments we got from island residents. we upgraded by facilities and bike paths leading from the bridge to treasure island. we reduce the height of the tallest building by about 200 feet as a result of public comment. produced the commercial parking ratio. we also, as you know, were faced with the governor's budget proposal to eliminate redevelopment, and the risks associated with redevelopment. at this point, we do not know where that is going to end up. we are adopting a financing district model to finance the plan and will talk about changes associated around that, which in vote -- which travelled around housing and how the project is administered. to highlight some of the public benefits, the big one is open space. two-thirds of the island is built.

the 300 acres would be new open space. maintenance would be funded by the project. it would include neighborhood parks, a city side art park, access to the water, sailing, and a fairly substantial urban form. the capital cost of the open space is about $124 million. the infrastructure is a total redo of the island. new utilities, new sidewalks. we purchased the land from the navy at a cost of $117 million, the cost borne by the developer. we will strengthen the island. 105 acres of the island will be significantly strengthened, as well as improvements to the perimeter for seismic reasons. there is also a significant plan

for protecting against sea level rise. both of these have been in the works for five years, since our sea level strategy has been indoors. we raised the island about 2 feet above what exists now downtown, with accommodations to make changes in the future. this chart shows you in graphic form what we are doing to the island to protect against sea level rise. the mean high tide now is plus 5.5 feet from the low tide. the big flood elevation theme -- the flood plain is above 5.2 feet. today, it is plus nine to 12 feet from the low high tide. the grade would be three to 6 feet above that.

the perimeter height would be further, up to 17 feet, with the opportunity to go further in future years. downtown, for instance, is plus 10 feet. chairperson mar: a supervisor has a question. supervisor weiner: in recent weeks, there has been a lot of stuff floating around about the seismic boehner ability of the island -- about the seismic vulnerability of the island, and the possibility that it will sink overtime. since this is coming off formal approvals, i think it is important, and you are addressing that. i guess my question is what is your confidence level? it seems we are like ships passing in the night. some people are saying it is going to sink into the ocean.

others are saying this engineering is bulletproof. i am curious why the ships are passing in the night. >> i think it is the fact that the project is coming to final approval. this is something that has been studied in this project for years. it is a cornerstone to this project. we realize this must be improved. there are going to be up to 18,000 people living on the island. specifically, our sea level rise strategy has been held up as an example included in proposed changes to the bay plan, in looking for other jurisdictions to adopt similar strategies. we are making adjustments to sea level rise, but have the ability to go even further than what we are doing, if in 20 a.d. there

is a need to go further. the ability -- if in 2080 there is a need to go further. there is a funding stream that will allow us to do that. right now, we are accommodating 4 3 feet of sea level rise in what we are doing. you can see that in those charts. as far as seismic safety, we think that this will be -- this chart shows the way it will fill in san francisco. we think it will be the most seismically safe plant in san francisco. that will make this a safer place, including mission bay. chairperson mar: i know john elberling brought this up and

said the seismic concern is one of the biggest issues. when with the seismic and other infrastructure changes be made? is this right at the beginning of the project? >> this would be done before any buildings could be billed. that area would have to be seismically upgraded. the would be the first improvements made. chairperson mar: 1 others like you did not get to yet is the -- one slide you did not get to yet is the bcdc slide about seismic safety. my biggest question -- this is an island. downtown is surrounded by land. but this is still an island. i know we heard presentations

before about how the different reinforcements around the island were making it safe to tsunami some. is that correct? -- make it safe to tsumanis. is that correct? >> buildings are 350 feet from the coastline to make accommodations for sea level rise and anything else. moving on to another topic that was well discussed throughout the project and throughout the joint commission is transportation. the project calls for about $125 million in transportation, including a core hub that would have muni service, ferry service, and an on-island shuttle to move residents around the island. new streets, a pedestrian ways,

and bypass, as well as the shuttle would still take a $350 million developer supplement. there is a point of impact to the bridge. the big question is what are we doing to mitigate against that and to encourage workers on treasure island to stop using automobiles and to take transit. there are a couple of ways to do that. one is congestion pricing. that would be a fee to come on and off the island during peak hours. that fee has not been set yet. we are pegging it at $5 during peak hours. that would be set by treasure island transportation management. caltrans would control throughout metering lights

egress. there is un-bundled 1-1 residential parking on the area. it would be a transportation subsidy to subsidize transit from the island. we require all houses to buy a transit pass, with the equal of a fast past cost. my state law, it was already established that the titma will oversee transportation operations. we are recommending that titma the the city-county transportation authority. that will come before you. the board has to make the determination as to who is the treasure island over severe.

there is a robust plan including $500 million toward renovating the existing public pool. there is a new police and fire station. there is up to 33,000 square feet of additional community service space, including a youth center or senior center. then there is the retention of existing buildings, including the chapel and existing gem. -- existing gym. there are 3000 annual construction jobs and 3000 permanent jobs on the area. 15% -- 50% of those will be targeted for san francisco, 25% for low-income. chairperson mar: will this fall within the local hiring law? is it falling within our

recently passed san francisco local hiring? >> it is not. the difference here is this is not an issue where the city is contracting directly for services. the developer is making these improvements. the city would in essence by the improvements, but it could be years later after that are constructed. the developer fronts friends early to build the infrastructure -- france fu -- fronts funds early to build the infrastructure. chairperson mar: will those local hiring percentages be in the development agreement? >> yes. finally, affordable housing -- obviously, there has been a significant impact to affordable housing from our switch from tax increment financing through redevelopment to an infrastructure financing district. we are proposing a reduction in affordable housing from 30% to

20%. chairperson mar: 25%? >> thank you. which they hope to get back to 25% if there is additional funding. we remain committed to tihdi -- supervisor cohen: he said if we get back to our affordable housing dollars? >> we are in process -- as you know, the other ifps were only able to get 69 cents on the dollars for projects, whereas with redevelopment we were able to get 80 cents on the dollar. that loss in increment was recommended to make up for that loss. what we intend to do and are already doing is looking at making legislative changes at the state level to try to get back to that 80%, if we possibly can.

that mirrors what we saw under redevelopment. that is to be determined, how exactly we are going to do that. but there are five pieces of legislation now before the state legislature that would look at making changes in how money is spent. currently, affordable housing is a prohibited use for ifp's unless you have a replacement housing requirement. in this case, we do. we would like to change ifp law to allow them to be used for affordable housing, and to get us back to the 30% we envision. supervisor cohen: i thought you heard something -- i thought i heard you say something about when the money comes back to a certain level, meaning affordable housing. >> any increment we get back of

the 65 cents will be used for affordable housing. if we get fully back to the 80 cents, we would revert back to where we are, with 30% affordable housing. chairperson mar: can i follow up on those questions? i know john elberling also raised this as a question, to get more specifics on how we are going to get from 25% back up to 30% if we have state legislation that passes. i know assemblyman amiano and others have legislation that has been introduced or are planning to. but could you give us a the public more specifics about how this legislation may help us get back to that 30%? also, there was an option of san francisco buying back parcels if funding comes from local, state,

or federal sources. >> one we can do this is to get additional tax dollars. basically, we are able to spend the city share. under a development scenario, you also get state share of tax increments. what we want to do is go back and make changes to the ifp law to allow us to find affordable housing to get some of the state share back into the project. the argument we are making for the state is but for that it is tough for us to get the affordable housing levels we would like at 30%. the port has been successful doing that for per se 70. oo -- for pier 70.

they made the argument that pier 70 is a tough place to develop, land that was given to the city by the state. it was successful. there is president of the city level to capture some of that increment back for this project. chairperson mar: how likely is the state legislation going to be successful, and when and how much are we going to be able to recoup the so we can increase the base? i am seeing 25% affordable housing as a base. the you have a sense of how successful the legislation will be, and how the money may come through? >> it is hard to say. we can point to things like the port, that was successful, to make us optimistic. but the whole issue of redevelopment, and the governor's proposal to