supervisor mirkarimi will have another one. just a question. this is actually for item 9. this is something i may not be familiar with on page 6. i was just wondering if this is the norm and how substantive amendments and additions can be made. this is under section four, subsection e. the director of planning is authorized to return any additional amendments and modifications to the d.a. i wondered if this was common and what the range was. he could give me some examples of what the parameters of this might be a substantive changes that could be made to the plan.

>> they tend to be more technical, but they could be design changes. the earlier sections basically locked in the general entitlement. for example, building 8000 units. that is a maximum of 8000 units. or the parking ratios or locked in the dna in that entitlement being provided now, but to the extent there are modifications around design, for instance, those are the types of changes that could be made by planning. and planning has to interpret when someone comes forward, a developer comes forward with a project on treasure island. it will be planning's job for the housing, at least on treasure island, to interpret that it is consistent with the zoning.

supervisor kim: the other question i had is i was wondering if you could summarize a little bit in terms of section 7 of the development agreement, in terms of what it looks like for the board of supervisors to do periodic review for process, what that looks like. sorry, this is under section four again, subsection d. >> under the development agreement ordinance, the planning director would provide an update about whether we are in compliance with the plan before the planning commission. this kind of mirrors our

language in the ordinance that allows us to enter into a development agreement. supervisor kim: how often with these periodic reviews take place? >> we are proposing annually. supervisor kim: last question i had was a clarification question. i noticed that under section one in e, it said the project will include -- and i noticed that the new 400-but marina was taken out, but it is still included in item 12 -- the new 400-foot marina. i was just wondering why that was taken out. it was just to allow flexibility under the plan. >> we still intend to make the marina improvements, but it would be under a separate lease and development agreement with a separate developer. so when the developers were selected, there was a selection for this development here, and a

separate solicitation to select a developer for the marina. so it will be coming to you at a later date with the approval documents to implement the marina. supervisor kim: thank you. lastly, i wanted to introduce just one amendment to the d.a., and this is in relation to our press conference this morning. by the way, i want to thank many of our partners in this room, including the mayor's office and our partners on treasure island and labor for working hard and doing a lot of the heavy lifting to ensure that we have it half way to get the 30% affordable in sacramento and pushing to make sure that we have legislation that would be under way. the work needs to continue happen as the lobby our representatives in sacramento. first of all, i just want to say that it is important for us to thank assemblymen ammiano and

state senator leno. one of the amendments i wanted to introduce today is in the state housing plan. currently, it says the for the two years from the closing of the navy agreement, the maximum public financing provisions are made to i s the law, but are there other options so that funding becomes available as a would have been under california redevelopment law, so there is a 25% of nestle become 30%. i just want to extend that to five years to ensure that we have the time that we need to get to the plan that many of us are supporting. that will be my one amendment. supervisor chu: could you provide a copy of what those amendments would be? if i understand correctly, that would be an amendment to the underlying development agreement? in the situation, would we have to revert back to anywhere for a change in the underlying agreement because it is not in the resolution, or in the document before us? >> this kind of change would be

made to the agreement, not to the legislation itself, and it is not of the nature that would need additional referral, so you would simply be accepting from the department or from the parties an amended agreement as opposed to a committee amending it, amending the agreement. as you know, the board does not have the authority to amend contracts, but you can accept an amendment from the department proposing it. supervisor chu: i will get copies of the amendment to other members. rather than vote on the item immediately, so we can have time to digest what the changes are, if there are further comments, we can take those. not, i will go to supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor kim: no further comments. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to reiterate what i said this morning in the press conference in a very wonderful display of support this morning

by community-based organizations, union labor, the public and private sector, and my notation was that this is a project that has now reached past its 10th anniversary. since the competitive bidding went out, so this is quite a hallmark before this body in helping decide whether to advance this project or not. i'm hoping we do. i know a little bit about that particular intersection. when market octavia came in under my watch, it had gone through the planning process and community process for well over seven years and came under arrest. with important community and developer and but, in a few months, we were able to refinance into a project we could all be very proud of. i wanted to just reach back to

one comment that some people might sort of discount and dismissed as being a little science fiction, and i do not think we should, and that is on the question at sea level rise. i have to tell you, with the emergency permits bet the commission has to render a verdict on because of all the images in southern california falling into the ocean, due to sea level rise, it is not inconceivable that there be some of these blow back effects with any kind of either earthquake/tsunami that would somehow compromise treasure island. to that effect, we actually had a sea wall in pacifica, which is party to the debate about sharp park, that has been complete the compromise, and to a cost of millions of dollars to said it is good that is obligated in repairing that sea wall, should we elect to do that or not. in that concern about sea level

rise, which i think is an inevitability that few, except maybe fox news, would argue with, what do we really say to the public about the prospective liability and how we deal with that? >> for the record, office of work force development, this is a topic of great concern, both to the project but as well to the region and state and nationally, and it has been extensively studied with respect to the infrastructure plan that underpins the entire development. we have done a coastal flooding study with the bay area's premier engineering firm that was peer review on behalf of the city by urs. we have taken into account the

potential risk related to some of these as well as the predictions for growth mid term and long term sea level rise in the infrastructure plan. the risk related to tsunami is, as noted in public comment, are much different in the day than they are in japan or the coast line of california. there is a very small opening to the bay, which would only allow a limited way linked to enter into the bay, and once it does, it would become diffused. the wave energy -- once it reaches treasure island, would be much less than when the waves were to hit the coast line. the 10-but tsunami wave that was referenced in public, has actually been incorporated into the probability analysis in setting the base blood regulations in establishing the parameter high. the probability has been assigned, and those based blood elevations were set to look at a number of factors, including wind-driven waves, as well, sea

level rise, and potential risk of tsunami. in addition, we have developed a geotechnical and seismic safety plan to reinforce the entirety of treasure island, both the perimeter as well as development areas. those development areas are being raised 36 inches, and an additional 6 inches to the finished floor elevation. the perimeter elevations have been set to accommodate up to 16 inches of steel level rise initially, and then there is a project generated funding mechanism which will be put in place as well as an adaptive management strategy and reporting program that tida would report on every five years. it would look at science and local conditions with respect to actual sea level rise, and then make recommendations for the types of improvements that would be made in the coming five years as well as funds collected in order to make those improvements. given that, we feel that we have a plan in place that provides protection both with respect to

seismic risks, tsunami risks, and potential future sea level rise. supervisor mirkarimi: this comports with bcdc's standards as well? >> absolutely. they have held us up as a model in the bay area for how you address potential future sea level rise. supervisor mirkarimi: i am aware that they are grappling with trying to have a regional definition of sea level rise right now, trying to get input from both public and private sector on that particular definition. ok, very good. i appreciate the answer to the question. just curious, what is the sinkage rate of treasure island right now? >> that is a technical answer that i do not have in front of me. i know that when we are done with the key technical improvements, we are designing it for zero subsidence, long- term subsidence, that we are going in doing be dynamic combatants to consolidate the uppermost crest, and surcharging

the bay mud underneath, so you will get zero long-term settlement over the life of the project. supervisor mirkarimi: this might be the first to credence of when people refer to as as the amsterdam, they did not mean just -- anyway. [laughter] >> i will reserve my comment. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i have been talking with project sponsors and developers. i have questions and concerns, a little bit more -- maybe not a question, but a comment, and maybe you could respond. when market octavia came to us, it also was slated for a one-to- one parking unit ratio. i realize this has been the -- the labor -- belabored to the point of years, and we changed it because we realized that we could accommodate the capacity to modify that one to one of one unit a parking bill for one unit

of housing, and i thought the outcome was a decent outcome, sensible, so it was not one to one any more, but i realize that there is some added in the of keeping it one-to-one but treasure island. -- some at mnc -- some adamancy keeping a one-to-one for treasure island. congestion pricing is one strategy, but it does not necessarily dissuade the reliance on private automobiles. i love that, it would be then having transit, and it is the transit system i am concerned about that is not developed enough to support the increased population on treasure island. if you could just talk a little bit about that very quickly, and then, i have an amendment, which

i believe is friendly to private sponsor. i would like to hear your thoughts. >> i think we can make a distinction between treasure island and some of the areas covered under market octavia. certainly, this is the birthplace to have a neighborhood cap. this is all the parking you could actually build. in the instance of hayes valley or other neighborhoods within market octavia, we have got it built environment where there are pools of parking and available parking. we should be confident we have a neighborhood cap of one to one parking. i think we have also been extremely creative in developing the transportation plan probably beyond the seismic issues and sea level rises has been one of the major concerns and issues we have grappled with over the years. beyond congestion pricing, caltrans has control over the

ramps. we will form the transportation authority, which the board has authorized to run or subsidize the ferry service. they will get parking revenue from the island. meter revenue as well as parking revenue to subsidize the service, as well as the $30 million subsidy from the developer to subsidize weta and ac transit to provide transit service, so we are confident we will have robust transit service on the island. supervisor mirkarimi: be i hope that is the case, but in a case that is not, i'd like to move forward with a contingency potentially so that we all rise to the standard of what it means to be a transit first city, especially in a population that is isolated, for lack of a better characterization, in that we were trying to make sure that the principles of transit first our extended into a population that will be challenged in their own mobility and ability, so that it is not always defaulting back to private automobiles.

i do not know if the project team sponsors would like to come up, but based on language that i have vetted with you all, under the section of existing development fees or exactions, adding line d is an amendment that i am proposing, and that is a transit impact development fee on new net office space consistent with that currently applicable in downtown san francisco. that would be the extent of the amendment, and the sponsors would like to speak to that, i would greatly appreciate it. >> we represent the joint venture that is treasure island community development, and we are happy to accept your suggested language. supervisor mirkarimi: to the city attorney, does that satisfy the early requirement that as long as it is accepted by the sponsoring party? >> i had suggested that it would

be important to make sure both sides agree to this additional term, so, yes. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. thank you, madam chair. i just would like to say good job to the city staff in helping facilitate this to this point and look forward to the continued conversation and ultimately to the implementation. supervisor chu: thank you. just returning to a few questions from me, i want to turn the focus back a little bit to the finances. with respect to the phasing in of some of the improvements, i see that there is going to be roughly about $1.5 billion worth of investment, whether it is infrastructure, transportation, open space, so i'm trying to understand using isd to pay for a redevelopment mechanism. the margin is quite thin. we have only 8% that would be going to the general fund, and that represents $3.8 million of

which we would not be bonding against, and that is the margin above which we are receiving money. the rest will go to debt service to pay for the improvements. i'm just wondering, as we go down this process if the property tax revenues do not come in as we expect, if the numbers do not come in with a $3.8 million margin to the general fund, what is going to happen with this project? are there items in the $1.5 billion investment, whether it is open space or other things, that would have to be delayed? what would be the plan? >> a couple points on that question. one, the on the property tax that would come into the general fund, as harvey rose reported, there are additional general fund revenues that the project will generate, and those would include property tax, sales tax,

and a host of others, the payroll tax included. so the net -- or actually, the gross revenue we expect coming to the general fund, including the $3.3 million from property tax, would be over $20 million. we have also estimate whatwe hal city costs and we have worked with the fire department, muni, etc.. there is a cushion of $7 million, $8 million to the general fund beyond just the property tax revenue. >> if i understand this correctly, currently the property tax margin is 8.8. payroll tax and etc., we are expecting $20 million in revenue from that with $40 million incurred in expenses against that. >> correct.

there are police officers there nell, so this will be an additional cost to the city, using today as the baseline. >> given a scenario where we might see finance is not coming out the way that you expect, what are the options for reevaluating the investments? >> we have a fairly large cushion of seven or $7 million to protect against that. to your second point on the infrastructure improvements, when the developer makes those initial improvements, they will be paying for them with the anticipation of future property- tax revenue. they will issue bonds to basically buy back those improvements. the streets, the sewer lines, the water lines, etc.. really, they bear the risk on

the future development not generating enough revenue to buy back those improvements. the bondholders in the situation only rely on property tax. bondholders have no resort -- recourse back to the general fund for those bonds. it is really the risk of the developer, whether they will be reimbursed or not. supervisor chu: thank you. with regards to redevelopment, there are still a number of things that aren't certain that -- and certain that the state level -- under certain at the state level. can you tell me why we should be moving forward with an ifd, given that the finances there

are not as good as a redevelopment area? >> there have been a couple of bills over the last couple of weeks that have been put forward regarding the development. those bills have been tabled by the legislature. it is still uncertain what will happen with redevelopment. the amount of increment propose to be available would be significantly less, perhaps even less than what is available. while we do not know what will happen to redevelopment, we are fairly certain that it will not be as robust a tool as it is now. the mayor is certainly on record as saying that he would like to see redevelopment continue. that we do right.

our anticipation that the state level, given the vote that happened a couple of months ago, it narrowed the past by just a handful of votes. we anticipate something happen to redevelopment. in this case, with the amendments proposed, we could get back to it redevelopment scenario in this project. supervisor chu: is there anything that would prevent us from reverting back towards to redevelopment plan? if we go backwards to create an ifd, is it better financially than ifd? could we switch back to the redevelopment area? >> absolutely. we would have to switch back to a redevelopment plan, which we were actually doing. but it is prohibitive to go the other way. if we could form a redevelopment

plan, we could not go to an i fd. supervisor chu: the budget finance committee had before us not long ago an ifd that was put forward as a pilot. one of the reasons i was comfortable with that proposal is that we said we would put together parameters under which we would approve future ifd's. under what circumstances would be ok for us, the city to, to forgo. given that the budget and current situations are always something we have to look out for. we said we would create protections with parameters, but we are not at that point. we have no parameters that have been approved in any draft.

how should i think about this or feel about this even before we have considered it. >> a great question. this does not necessarily fit into what we were discussing before. we may have to, after we figure out redevelopment, after the state figures that out, if ifp is going to be a tool in the future, there may have to be other projects. like in the mission yard. with a substantial amount of that revenue being put back into the project for infrastructure redevelopment. i do not think that we are able to make that argument. but for open space improvements, we would not have development. our office is happy to work with you in making that distinction between the projects that are

like redevelopment as opposed to the nicer to house projects, where development would happen, i believe, but you might want to maximize actual amount of general fund revenue to ifd-type improvements. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i wanted to thank the chairman for asking some related questions. i wanted to clarify, in terms of if you could go over the breakdown of property taxes that the general fund receives, what are the two great papilla >> under redevelopment, if there is a dollar of property tax, currently how it works is 80% of that property tax could be used

for redevelopment. 20% of that is set aside for affordable housing. the remaining 20 cents is distributed to taxing entities. much like the dollar property tax. the school district would get 7.7%. under this scenario, the city is able to allocate a portion of its 65 cents. the general fund portion. it continues to go to taxing entities. the school district actually benefits under the ifd scenario. they would continue to get 7.7 cents on the dollar. under redevelopment, they get less. they only get 7.7 cents of 20 cents.

other taxing entities also benefit from an ifd supervisor kim: the one thing -- an ifd. supervisor kim: could you clarify again, the city general fund gets the same percentage between ifd ifand redevelopment? >> you make that determination. you would determine how much of it is gotten. in this case we are asking for ifd to get 50 cents in. under redevelopment, the general fund would get 65% of 20 cents. about 13 cents of every dollar, with 80 cents going to the reve