the ballot. i think that everyone else will take a look and will vote individually on how a particular tax proposal will impact them personally and how they feel about the policy. a certain amount of people will vote for the entire package. we need to do something about this service and many a balanced approach that is not just cut some. take a look at oakland and the multiple measures. i think that we could go in that direction but we are not. i don't think that it

disappearing progress a payroll tax and a parking tax will really help the real estate property. >> can we have a roll call on the motion to table i am not and do -- motion to table item 9. >> yae. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no.

>> item 9 is tabled. >> can we have a simple vote on item 10? the motion passes. >> this would raise $26 million per year. the office of economic impact has the report which has said in the immediate effect would be enhanced jobs in the public sector and over many years, there would be a slight impact to private-sector jobs in the negative but not in a significant way. i think that would be counteracted by the money that is put back into the economy and this would have a stimulating effect for the economies. >> i just want to add a little bit of history to this discussion as well.

in our first year, we ended up settling a lawsuit and there was a big vote on the settlement. whether or not the plaintiffs had a strong case or not, it was a suit brought by 52 of the largest employers in san francisco are doing that the split was unconstitutional. we settled the suit, we ended up basically doing in our gross receipts tax. item number9 has been tabled. the history of what we attempted to do to go out and recoup some of those lost revenues which the comptroller could probably tell us, we don't know how much money this has cost us but probably

significantly over $100 million at this point in terms of lost city revenue that we otherwise would have gotten from some of the largest corporations in the city and in the world. we went to instead of initially with the gross receipts or increased payroll tax, we went with real estate transfer tax. ironically, the campaign against that said that we will use the proceeds from that tax to pay for the special assistance even though we were attempting to rein in this. they got that out of there in the campaign and they were able to defeat it. other efforts to pass a small gross receipts tax or increase the payroll tax were also defeated over the years. since we took office with the

class of 2000, and we have had a significant decline tax revenue is not in terms of real dollars but in terms of what this city is assessing out there in terms of what the split role would have brought in. we continue to try to recoup those monies and basically that percentage that we ended up giving up the hot shot los angeles attorney, 52 of the largest employers two years ago. basically, because of this, this is a large part of our structural budget issue. one of these days, hopefully this is it, we need to go and we need to recoup those lost money is because without it, we are

just out of balance. are really don't want the history of the filthy 52 and their lawsuits against the city to be lost to the supervisors who are here for those discussions. there was a lot of effort to try to recoup the money and get our money back in the balance. i don't want that loss when we leave. >> thank you, colleagues. any further discussions? >> can we take a roll-call vote on item 8? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye.

>> no. >> aye. >> no. >>aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. can you call items 11-13. >> all items 11 and 12 are from the land use. item 11, it is to adopt findings in response to written objections to the adoption of an amendment to the bay few hunters point redevelopment plan. item 12 is an ordinance adopted an amendment to the plan and authorizing an interagency cooperation agreement between the city and county of san

francisco. item 13, this is also in response to written objections to the adoption of amendment to the hunters point shipyard. >> item 27 is from the land use committee. this is a resolution adopting findings and the californian firm. quality act. items 28-36 are the resolutions and ordinance that pertained to the shipyard project adopted under ce #q -- ceqa. this is under the planning code, the building code, the infirm. code, the public-works code.

>> we will have a long discussion on this. why don't we start with supervisor maxwell? >> thank you, today we have a rare opportunity to advance the great work of a number of community members to have hoped and work for this revitalization of the shipyard. today, we can align ourselves with those who since 1974 who have dreamed and brainstorm about how to fill a hole that was left in our community. thousands and thousands of people worked every day. some critics have worried that this will be difficult for the area. many people want change.

asked the residents of alice griffith if they are comfortable with the changes? they are demanding new opportunities to help prepare their communities and give their children hope. this highlights the very essence of the proposal. this is to focus public and private investment towards an area that has lacked such attention in the past. in that process, we have harnessed growth at existing committee members can participate in. we can deliver a package of benefits that is unmatched by any development project that has come before this body for consideration. committees in the southeast are expecting this project happen. there is hours and hours of public testimony, you have heard their demands for attention and new opportunity.

based on the results of the proposition, for the first time people looked at the bayview differently. they looked at the people who lived there differently. they voted yes, we want open change for the people in dade you and san francisco. this is large and complicated but it uses the very tools we have to generate activity elsewhere in the city. let us not be fearful of this project because of this scale. how else could the project at meet all of the incredible high expectations to deliver parts, affordable housing, jobs. we need to work together to make sure all this happens. the conversation has been very long to get here. we need all of those forces to stay involved and i welcome my

colleagues and your input. this has been improved by the input that you have had and we need to keep bell level of participation and passion to ride upon our desired outcome. >> it might be fruitless but i feel compelled to kind of began where i left off. this was the public hearing it from the plan of the board of supervisors. while this has met our legal requirements and obligations for

holding a hearing, this is after you sent folks out to move their cars because the street cleaning is beginning. you have an item that has so many people engaged on both sides. then you have four or five members of the public who are left because of the confusion. i think that that might have technically met the legal requirements for in a public hearing on the plan before the full board of supervisors, it met no other requirements or standards of public participation and openness and government and the sunshine and actually hearing from people

that out some of the most significant development plans in history. by an extent that this most likely will be fruitless. even if this is fruitful, there are many more so. -- opponents who are feeling demoralized at this point with the money that has been spent to neutralize and silence the opponents. there is a process that this is rigged against them and there are some who have juice in city hall and some that do not. the votes without that are here.

will make a motion to suspend the rules. we would like to give everyone the opportunity to be heard on one of the most important development proposals in san francisco history. >> supervisor daly has made a motion to suspend the rules to have additional public comment? is there is second to the motion? any additional conversation? if we can vote on the motion to suspend the rules to permit

public comment. >> no. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >>no. >> aye. >> no. >> mo -- no. >> aye. >> the motion fails. >> i would like to talk about the response to some of the comments, most of which came for me in terms of the affordability of the housing in this proposal.

this is almost as if there are two different languages that are being spoken. in my speech, which i think is a little bit more plain speak, there has been hit inadequacy in the plans below market rate housing. you can cut the inadequacies it 10 different ways. i think the most glaring example of the inadequacies is that in the plan, there are 892 or 8 and a half percent of the overall

production or the below market rate units that are above market rate. i am not sure when we decided that the identity property where 1 = 1 for the below market rate would equal below market rate to no longer applies to redevelopment. this is not a paltry number. these are over a quarter of the units that are below market rate. to have these it in the community is embarrassing. we not touch we are not able to

call a unit that is above market rates above, we have to call it a low. there was an interesting argument because of the long term requirements, housing goes up one day. they might be below market rates. this is an interesting argument, one which is dependent upon market conditions changing. there is some record of that overtime happening and this is not guaranteed. there is no guarantee that a unit that is currently above market rate will one day be below market rate.

they quickly default and say the housing is below median income. they are actually below market rate for the average sale price of the home in the city and county of san francisco. the $500,000 sell price, they say that this is less than approximately six and $75,000 average sale price for the home. colleagues, i think that those of us who have engaged on housing issues know that when

you take the average sale price of a home in san francisco in that you have a large number of high-end condominium units built around the san francisco ball park, condos, that used to start at a million. you have homes that occasionally turnover in some of the districts, some of which cost a pretty penny. the averages will drop by parts of the city that urges more affluent homes, they are more opulent you have housing in this plan which is half a million dollars which is not affordable

to an overwhelming percentage of the residence. this is more expensive than the news things that are on line right now that does not have any public subsidy in it. this is what the market is sparing in terms of new home ownership opportunities. this would cost less than the below market rate or least 25% to 26.5% of the below market rates in this plan. also, late into the evening, during the ceqa discussion, i was interested in having on the neighboring areas.

oftentimes if you have a large developer, we attempted to deal with this as discussed five years ago. this land values spike in a way that goes out words. how should we make sure that there's not secondary displacement. i've heard some people trying to turn this issue on.

the easiest way to talk about affordable issue, this is a very big difference between its proposal on the balance, especially one with $5 million.

the people of san francisco would like to see something significant with affordable housing costs. if you look at the maps, the success of the measure of the southeast part of the city and other parts of the city. there is a progressive block. even with a massive campaign the supervisor maxwell said there was hope, there is a sword and there is hope for the bayview left without a lot of specifics.

the queue for funding that. the polling, as reported, there must of been some and journals. that started off. before the massive campaign which i believe was disingenuous in terms of talking about the poison pill and the project when there was real revenue proposals that basically went along with it to pay for the affordability which some people ran to kill. this was not a poison pill, this was about political will. do we want to ease the needs of the community? that is happening.

supervisor maxwell likes to say that this is an unprecedented plan. this is a massive public investments. and you don't have 140-60 percent included. you have 460 rent-controlled units that are conclusion. the city's housing requirements

which are lower than the ones in the redevelopment plan. taking a look at the median income in this plan.