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.

[applause] please stand by please stand by

president chiu: is this specifically to the motion or can we go to the roster? >> it is to the motion. president chiu: why don't you speak to the motion? >> clearly we all want as much supportability as we possibly can and quite frankly, for purposes of this, i think 50% might not even be high enough. i'm trying to understand the financial liability of the underlying proposal

>> for the record, michael cohen. i think there are a couple of key points related to this issue and i will say that over years of public debate about this process, there was quite a bit of work precisely on this very question. there were two things that were the driving considerations. one is we've spent a huge amount of time with the pack and the cac in particular on figuring out what the right balance of public benefits of this project would be. affordable housing is important but it's not the only one. there was the strong need for granted improvements, a strong need for jobs and economic development, strong need for parts improvement, what ended up with more than $80 million

in various programs, funds for health, wealth, scholarship, et cetera. all of these come with a box. so really, the most important element of the community based planning process that we engaged in was trying to figure out a balancing of how do we get . most important need of all was doing that in the first page. it's expensive, it's particularly expensive doing it in the first stage. ultimately, we reached a point where we think we had pushed this process through as reasonably as financially feasible. we did not believe that there

were reliable sources of city funding, even in good years to make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars which is project generated and as a result of that balance, coming up with what we think is a pretty affordable housing plan. it's just in terms of raw numbers, you have close to 1400 affordable rentals, affordable residences at low and moderate income levels plus over 800 units of inclusionary home ownership at exactly the same levels that apply to the rest of san francisco. >> if i may, i'm still not clear on the answer because if this project is viable with the 50% inclusionary amount, then i think that i certainly would be supportive of that. but i'm trying to understand if

it's viable along the lines that has been proposed. >> it is not financially viable, 50%, and delivering all of the other benefits necessary to make this project work. and that was -- we spent years discussing that. it was probably the primary subject of the debate in process in g but also widely discussed at the pac redevelopment and planning commission. supervisor campos: and i also have a question that also relates to this in the sense that it goes to the larger question of what stages are acceptable for this process and -- president chiu: before we continue, i was hoping that we could hear a presentation from lawd sort of laying out what we have in front of us today and then i was going to ask the deputies to the attorney to advise us as to what we can do today and what we cannot. colleagues, if that makes

sense, why don't we proceed in that fashion and i understand, i think supervisor daly would have to slightly amend his amendment so it comports with what we're able to do today. why don't we start first with the presentation mr. cohen as to the various legislation we have to state the big picture and then i will ask our deputies to the attorneys to tell us what we are allowed to do today. i know a number of colleagues have amendments that they want to move forward today. >> sure. for the forward, michael cohen, director of the economic workforce development. before you today are the following actions. approval of redevelopment planned amendment for hunters point, shipyard and funding changes to the city's general plan and planning code and zoning map. approval of a number of process and implementing agreements, including an interagency cooperative agreement, tax

allocations agreement, site specific amendments to the subdivision code and to the health code and approval of land assembly agreements with the state lands commission as well as people findings supporting all of those actions. as was noted earlier, each of these specific items have been thoroughly veted at numerous public meetings over many, many months at the bay view pac, hunters point, the redevelopment agency commission, the planning commission and the land use committee of the board of supervisors among many others. the actions are relevant because they help implement the redevelopment of candle stick point and the rest of hunters point shipyard. collectively that redevelopment encompasses 10,500 residential units.

more than 30% of which are affordable units as we've been talking about. more than 300 acres of new parks and recreation areas and over three million square feet of job generating commercial and retail space. the plan -- and we talked about this before -- is the direct result of the very best kind of community based planning. at numerous hearings, it was noted that the bay view community asked for and initiated these redevelopment plans and for more than 15 years, the bay view community has overseen an incredibly thorough, transparent and inclusive dialogue about what should happen with these lands. probably the most important element of that community based planning process has been what we were just talking about

which is to establish relative priorities for key community benefits, figuring out how to balance community desires for affordable housing, including how much to spend on each. all while still preserving the basic financial feasibility necessary for anything good to happen as you say. through an ever broadening coalition of local business, community, nonprofit, faith based and labor leaders, this project has been designed to deliver one of the broadest and deepest community benefit packages in the country. chief among these public benefits are a massive investment in affordable housing, including over 1,300 affordable rental units targeted at low and moderate income residents, first ever program for real work force housing and the complete

rebelieve of the public housing development. and the project includes the largest parts improvement project in san francisco since golden gate park was built, including nine miles of new bay trail along a newly opened up southern waterfront, 10,000 new trees and more than 50 acres of sports and recreation areas. and massive transportation improvements that were significantly improved transit service for all of southeastern san francisco and 10,000 permanent jobs and over 1,000 construction jobs per year over the buildout of the project and over $80 million of private funding for workforce development, education, scholarship, health and wellness and other community and local economic development programs. transactionally the project and

the project documents have been structured to ensure that all of the public benefits have to be delivered in each phase of the project, not just at the end and proportionately along with the market rates development and regardless of the developer receiving a particular return. all of the benefits are delivered without any investment of general fund dollars and without any risk of the general fund if the project takes longer or economic projections are not fully realized. and as the economic analysis indicates, not only is the city's general fund protected but the project should add over $350 million each year to the city's economy. ultimately the key policy question before you is what do we stand to gain if we move forward with this process versus what we stand to gain or what potential problems we avoid but not approving the

project. what we stand to gain is pretty obviously. we create an opportunity for a huge benefit in southeast san francisco, for transportation improvements that the city couldn't possibly even in the best budget times fund itself. and it's worth noting here, we've had a couple of funds over the last 10 years while i've been around, we've had some pretty good economic times and almost none of that money made its way in creating or improving parks in southeastern san francisco. on a citiwide basis, we advanced good urban planning by directing new development and economic growth to advantage former industrial lands like treasure island, thereby relieving some of the pressure and growth on existing neighborhoods. what do we gain -- or what do we avoid if we don't approve

the project? it's not clear that we gain or avoid anything except in the realm of unintended consequences, the residents of alice griffith get more of the status quo with no real viable plan for rebuilding their homes and the residents of the bay view get more of the status quo with no real plans to offset decades of high unemployment and poor public health and a lack of the basic part of transit and retail amenities the rest of san francisco takes for granted. decades of doing nothing for these potentially useful waterfront lands have clearly not done any good for the bay view or defining the african-american populations or the city as a whole. now at least we have the opportunity to try something different and to offer hope and a viable opportunity so something other than just more of the status quo.