>> good afternoon, welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for july 27th. mr. president, all members are president. >> can you please turn for the pledge of allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of

america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> colleagues, you should have copies of the board meeting minutes, do i have a motion to approve? without objection, those are approved. madame clerk, are there any communications? >> items one through five are the consent agenda and it will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. >> colleagues, roll call vote on items one through five. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >>

aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> 11 in favor. >> those ordinances are finally passes. >> can you call items number6 and 7? >> these are the proposed budget an annual appropriation of perpetrating all estimates and estimates for the -- upper pretty all estimates for the city of san francisco. -- appropriating all estimates for the city of san francisco. >> colleagues, any discussion? can we get a roll-call? >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. aye. >> those finally passed. can we call the next three items? >> items 8-10, these are from the budget and finance committee without recommendation. item number 8, a motion ordering submitted to the voters of arkansas to rise in an amendment to the real property transfer tax. item nine, an ordinance revising

the payroll expense -- expense tax to establish a progressive tax rate structure. item number 10, this is an ordinance authorizing the ordinance amending san francisco business and tax regulation code for a parking ordinance. >> san francisco faces tremendous financial challenges as a result of the crisis. we have just recently closed a $483 million budget deficit. this is a brief respite for our financial health. we don't know what will happen. we will be able to see our full budget for this year. the proposal for the deficit of next year, this is well over half a billion dollars.

the year after that, the same. this is well over half a billion dollars. we have cut well into the phone. these are the things that make san francisco a unique place in the country. labor will give back $250 million in lost wages and benefits. these are significant sacrifices that labor unions have been making and members will be facing in order to continue living in san francisco and it will be much more difficult to put food on the table. over the past year, the city has cut 64 million in the

overtime and salaries. we have cut many services and the san franciscans around the city are facing higher and higher fees. we need to have revenue as part of our budget solution. that is what i'm proposing an increase in the real estate transfer tax. this increase is not affecting every day people who own single- family homes. this is an increase for property that is sold at a volume of over $5 million.

we also need to know as the city is cutting back on services, we have given back. we have to have revenue as far as the solution. i hope that you will consider this as part of our revenue solutions. this offers of important way to bring revenue to our city. >> thank you. as i stated when a number of

this, they take time to study the various proposals. i would like to have support for the transfer tax and i would make a motion to table the business tax proposal that i have put forth. the november ballot is a very crowded but we must make important decisions that garner significant support and consensus. the tax proposal that i put forth came out of many many months of research and frankly out of request that we have asked of our controller and the city economist to look at facts and data and look at the fact that our current business payroll tax has been payroll tax

killer. this applies to 10% of all the businesses. many do not paid this tax banks to insurance companies and payroll institutions. the proposal that i put forth would not have only brought in $24 million but would have done this in a way that created hundreds of new jobs. i understand that there is a consensus about whether this should move forward. my colleagues have indicated support. we do have the ability to put this on the ballot. i think that for the purposes of making sure that we will be placed in november, i would like to ask us to support the package. the work has not been wasted. i will certainly be engaging in

future conversations and future ballots either next year or in 200012 to consider something to really reform our business tax system but at this time, i will be supporting supervisor avalos and his supported tax. >> would you like to make a motion? >> yes, i would. >> i think that the parking tax should be tabled. we were challenged.

so far, the one that i think seems to emerge is the one that i think the general consensus at least with a high number of us is revolving around the tax measure advanced by supervisor avalos. i want to keep in mind the role of the parking tax should it be considered. with the exception of the baby vlf, there are no measures that are going forward.

this is the first time with the commission. it parking tax had not been enhanced and this was really since 1980 when the supervisor had led the charge for a successful parking tax. over 30 years, we have seen a great reason to doohickeys things. one is to be more effective and judicious in collecting revenue from garages.

there is a consortium that is doing their best to do that. then there is a non-aligned caucus that we believe could be doing more in providing revenue. in this tax, i will be working with the city treasurer and other colleagues on pursuing a article 22 where there will be significant strengthening of enforcement capabilities and commitments and making sure that those who owe us money paid out and we aren't going to delineate where those dollars may be. i make a motion to table item

number 10. >> i second. >> we have two motions on the table and my understanding that this is not debatable. >> but me go ahead and speak to the item if there is no motion. first, let me thank the supervisors for not falling into the republican position of attempting to balance very difficult budgets without looking at increasing revenue. the position of no new taxes is expedient but when it comes to doing the very important work of government and providing the

services that people have come to expect from local government that this is just not doable. this is not doable to continue down the path of just making cuts and cutting out the workers and the basic amenities. these are really necessary so that people can live their lives with the dignity that they deserves. -- deserve. i will attempt to vote for all of them. i think that supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor chu making the motion to tables -- table these are therefore difficult to pass other measures. i disagree with that political

analysis. i don't think that there is an effect that if you have too many different proposals, all of them have significant merit to, this takes away from many individual proposals. in many respects, the added if quality of smart proposals negates any of the - cumulative -- well, that is just too much in terms of taxes. this is one of the interesting line items. there was a poll that had many faults. one of the interesting lines which was true was a certain percentage of voters out there, they will vote against taxes generally. they will vote against every tax measure that we place, whether

it is one or four, five, six on 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