mr. emery? >> actually, he is not presenting on this. i can inform the committee. this is to cover the expenses that other departments have incurred in connection with this case. it has been around since 2007 and is a city wide challenge in claiming that. they are not accessible to people with disability. this is a class-action lawsuit. the trial concluded last week ended in the process of post trial briefing in the offices. because of the nature of the claims split amongst liability in this case around the departments, public works with respect to public right of way

and facilities and so on, each department has been contributing to litigation expenses involved in this case. to give you the idea of the magnitude of what we are talking about, i know that our office over the last four and more years has expense 15,000 hours in preparing for trial and work with experts, etc. we have spent over $500,000 on experts to date. that is an overview of the case. we will also inform the board at a later time of the courts decision and what it means for the city. that would likely be better handled in a court session pending litigation. supervisor chu: thank you very much.

to clarify, these expenses have already been incurred? >> mostly incurred through trial. as i said, there will be post- trial work that we are in the process of doing well. it is possible that there could be appeals on either side, but we are in the position now to do additional briefings and this is intended to cover those expenses as well. supervisor chu: to the comptroller's office, given that this covers work already incurred, should there not be a need to fully utilize this allocation, what would happen to the remaining funds? >> as always, if those funds are found to not be required in this case to make the city attorney's office whole, they would be

closed back to the general fund reserve, which would then be available to the mayor for the subsequent year. supervisor chu: for clarification, the department of public works responsibilities 842,000. the office of disability is generally funded at 241,000. this is split up in to that which is not in general fund. public comment on this item. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? item number eight? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. we have a motion to send this item forward with a recommendation. that can be done without objection.

can we call items 10, 11, and 12, please? and nine, thank you. >> item #9. ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and treasure island community development, llc, for certain real property located within treasure island/yerba buena island; exempting certain sections of administrative code chapter 6, chapter 14b and chapter 56; and adopting findings, including findings under the california environmental quality act, findings of consistency with the city's general plan and with the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1(b), and findings relating to the formation of infrastructure financing districts. item number 10. resolution approving the amended and restated base closure homeless assistance agreement with the treasure island homeless development initiative; adopting findings, including findings that the agreement is consistent with the city's general plan and the eight priority policies of city planning code section 101.1 and findings under the california environmental quality act. item number 11. ordinance appropriating $1,925,000 from the general fund reserve and $360,000 from

the public library preservation fund available fund balance to the department of public works, the recreation and park department, the library department, and the mayor's office of disability for litigation expenses related to the united states district court case between ivana kirola et. al. v. city and county of san francisco for alleged american with disabilities act violations in fy2010-2011. item number 12. resolution approving a disposition and development agreement between the treasure island development authority and treasure island community development, llc, for certain real property located on treasure island/yerba buena island; approving an interagency cooperation agreement between the city and the treasure island development authority; and adopting findings, including findings that the agreements are consistent with the city's general plan and eight priority policies of city planning code section 101.1, and findings under the california environmental quality act. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> from the office of economic workforce development, we have a brief presentation for the project in front of the general

public benefit for the project. land use already before the title board in planning commission for a number of public meetings, we will be brief with coverage of the general bun that. the project description that you see before the project, up to 500 hotel rooms and 550,000 square feet of retail and commercial space with 300 acres opera used for open space. community benefits include affordable housing, open space, and jobs in economic development. the land use plan is similar to the one the two were approved in 2010 with 8000 units centered around the transit hub carrying us access. public benefits include

infrastructure for the island at a cost of $170 million. technology improvements to stabilize the island. in san francisco, as well as protection, we have talked a lot about that. raising the island currently about one-fifth downtown, we purchased this from the navy at a cost of $117 million. the transportation program is innovative, we feel, and has been developed to encourage folks to use transit and not automobiles. there is a 1 to 1 parking ratio and congestion pricing metering. there is the creation of the treasure island transportation authority, which will collect revenues on the island to subsidize transit service to and

from the island. those units will be provided by transit passes with a capital investment of over $145 million with an operating subsidy of $125 million total. two-thirds of the island will be public space. we will come into different types of open space from neighborhood park to access to the water board, sailing, sailing improvement, urban farms, ann coulter the successful sports fields on the island now. at a cost of $124 million through the project, affordable housing we have talked a lot about in response to the governor's proposal for development. it led to work less revenue in the project, reducing affordable housing with the ability to get

back to 30%. we appreciate the work of the supervisor to try to get changes to legislation, given the commitment to legislative changes, allowing us to get back to 30%. the total cost of the affordable housing program is $430,000, making up a significant amount of the 1.2 $5 billion housing costs -- project cost. there is a program for residents that will allow them to stay on the island and get a new unit at the current rates. the new community facilities will be renovations of existing facilities, like the school and the construction of new facilities up to 30,000 square feet of additional communities base. such as a teenage center or a child care space. we are also keeping the existing chapel, jim, fitness center.

obviously, the project will create thousands of jobs when the island is fully built out. we have a jobs program in which we partner with tie dye to set goals. 50% of those jobs are held by san franciscans. 20% are targeted at other groups. low-income and formerly homeless san franciscans. funding is provided for training to make that a reality. these other projects entitlement documents before the board. the underlying ones have had the fiscal impact before this community today. the tie dye agreement, but homeless development initiative,

partnering with the navy to purchase the property. basically, and there has been some discussion on this, it basically give certainty to certain developers to build what we are developing today. recognizing that they will have to put hundreds of millions of dollars into cost infrastructure before they actually start getting reimbursed for those. it basically locked in the entitlements. recognizing that this will be a 15 year, 20 year project. the board still retains authority. they would interpret whether or not what is being proposed is consistent with zoning. any change to the development would have to come back to the board for approval. it is the main document that the developer as.

the city will receive land from the navy in fairly large chunks. there will be an additional chunk that makes up half the island. we, in turn, passed that on to the developer in two block increment. they have given us plans that have been approved to say that they are building things that are consistent with approval. that is to say yes, the infrastructure they are proposing is consistent with our infrastructure program with financial guarantees that the developer will build up. dda also includes housing plans, infrastructure plans, and jobs programs that we talked about. the agreement is our agreement

with the treasure island home was developed initiative. we have formulated this plan over the past decade and we owe them a lot of credit. lies with our 1996 agreement with them, the main components being that we provide them with subsidies to build units for new housing. we would also support them in their training efforts, including funding from the project. the navy agreement memorializes the purchase of treasure island made it over 10 years. we passed that obligation on to the developer. to make those payments is the ability to receive an additional $60 million. that is a summary of what is before you.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. i am sure that there will be additional questions. let's go to the economic analysis. >> supervisors, our office will present economic analysis now.

>> we seem to be having some technical difficulties with our slide. but i think all of the relevant information is included in the information i will present. i am from the office of economic analysis in the controller's office and i am here to present our findings by the economic impact of the proposed treasure island development project. supervisor chu: your presentation is up. >> thank you.

so. the project as a potential for significant economic impact on the city of san francisco. the legislation and allow for major mixed development. allowing for significant new housing and employment growth in residential populations. the fact is that we focused rupture and vertical buildings to complete the project over a 20 year buildup. they are ongoing impacts resulting from the permanent employment opportunities generated by the non-residential

portions of the development. and then there would be also impacts related to the increase in the housing supply. the impact that it would have of housing supply crisis in the city. then we have impacts on the new residents and spending retail services, helping to support sentences the retailers on the island. finally, we have conducted a brief analysis of the property tax base and analysis of the development. the development project will create thousands of construction jobs and inject billions during its 20 year development. as i mentioned, development costs are comprised of two components. the building costs of the actual structure -- supervisor chu: please be closer

to the microphone. do you happen to have a presentation document for us? >> i do not have a power point slide. supervisor chu: perhaps you can give one of the copies to us? >> you can also use the podium, using the other microphone on your right. >> this is fine. as i said, development costs are comprised of two basic components. infrastructure costs were part bridges were built first. estimated at a total of $5.8 billion over the life of the project. the impact on the city's economy, on our model, where we

put the construction costs and other factors in the model to determine the estimated total construction and indirect jobs, as well as economic output to the city on an average annual basis. as you can see, on average there will be about 1100 jobs attributed to the project. about 370 indirect jobs. translating into total economic output of $3.2 billion total, $178 million per year in the

side shows the estimated drop to permanent employment generated by the category and industry proposed for the project. land uses, the land use and industry that we selected here are based on the land use mix proposed for the project. other documents get at the estimated number of direct employment numbers. what we did was we applied the average wage to try to get an estimate or idea for what previous imp -- what employment would look like on the island. with an average income of

$60,000 that build up and occupancy. >> to be clear, you expect during the construction plays -- phase of the project you expect to create 120,000 jobs and after the full bill that is completed , 2200 ongoing jobs. >> correct, that is phased in over time. jobs and so forth arts -- expected to come on line. supervisor kim: when you talk about an additional 1400 direct and induced jobs, can you explain what that means in

detail bella >> you are talking about the permanent jobs? >> those are jobs that are associated with employees, direct employees in supporting the citizens that way. supervisor kim: you expect that to primarily be in small businesses? >> i do not have an answer for small or large businesses. >> -- supervisor kim: people that provide services and goods to the residents of treasure island? >> indirectly. if there is a lawn care company that needs to buy materials, they might buy them in san francisco from a supplier.

in a small way they are supporting a portion of one of those jobs. in directly engaging through the vending model. based on the previous slide, there is a mix with heavily weighted material for retail. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. since office was substantially involve in mobile hiring, either you or perhaps the team, it might be nice to get an idea. i have never seen in this report.

for the obvious ongoing commercial activity. >> the bulk of the spending that you are projecting to be in indirect effect our small businesses. the profiles that we pay out to receive the spending our small businesses in san francisco. we know that retail trade on average has significantly higher averages of employment being seven cisco residents coppe -- san francisco resident. you would expect the majority of the jobs generated to go to san francisco residents. supervisor mirkarimi: but without a particular mandate or direction, you are basing that on a trend, correct?

>> yes, that is the city's current practice and pattern. supervisor mirkarimi: in order to support proper have its towards the idea of a practice upper local hiring, from what we can tell in this document, there is nothing that really perfects that particular objective. >> we do have a jobs plan and economic opportunity plan that addresses, based on the first ordinance in the city, it would capture jobs for various developments. the goal being 50% of those

jobs being 50% and 25% being the population that tie dye is serving. so, we do have part of a plan. supervisor mirkarimi: as it relates to the commercial side, the local hiring for source components do not kick in until 5000 square feet of commercial space is activated. i wrote that law. that is what intersects with the planning code. what i am trying to get a handle on is what is under the 5000 square feet. is it all commercial developments?

>> we comply with the threshold. >>supervisor mirkarimi: being tt there is a healthy orbit of development, you should anticipate the question. supervisor chu: thank you. while we were on the local hired discussion, were there any changes to the higher rank as we switched financing from development? a kind of obligation on local hire or not. >> to be clearer, a local hire in the city will further

improvements being made by the developer as they are not direct between the city and the contractor. if we hire a contractor to build a new road, in this case the developer is actually fronting the funds and may not be reimbursed completely. may not be reimbursed for 30 years after they make those improvements. in the agreements, a local hire would not apply. supervisor chu: i do not know where this is not considered public works. you would get a policy goal, but take the shipyard.

those were implying treasure island? >> we had not formulated by our jobs at the program. supervisor chu: it would be good to know if there was a comparison between training and local hiring policies. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: still on the thread of the position of hiring local hiring, the construction side of the project will do its best to hone in on the practice of local hiring towards the goals we have laid out legislatively. as