residents throughout the community. the planning department conducted its own about -- in terms of providing mailings to people with -- i believe within the 1000-foot mark. we added to that by mailing to all households with in the bayview hunters point visitation valley area, which would visit coats of 94124, 94134, and in addition to that, i have personally attended more than 100 community meetings. we have gone to every neighborhood organization. we have participated with every neighborhood organization from the little hollywood

neighborhood club to the visitation valley planning alliance, to the visitation valley community center, to the sunnyvale neighbors, to be bayview hill neighborhoods, to the candlestick point neighbors, to the candlestick cove neighbors, to be bayview -- to the bayview pac. you name it, we have been there. i think the kind of outrage that we have had has been unprecedented -- the kind of outreach we have had has been unprecedented in the city. in addition, e-mail and snail mail a number of newsletters to people. we are still getting back coupons from people wanting to know when the houses are going to be available and that kind of thing. i personally have participated

in neighborhood fairs, and we have done balloons and t-shirts. i mean, there is no development out there that has had as much about -- as the executive park has had. i am pleased to say that we even had a 30-year barbecue to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the community advisory committee for the executive park. i am pleased to say that we have had just a tremendous amount of community support throughout the entire community, and we have leveraged, frankly, our community support to be used to support the continued opening of the candlestick point state

park. we have kind of combined our efforts, and i think people in the neighborhood can testify that we have utilize our resources to make sure that candlestick point state park is developed and develop properly and is maintained. supervisor cohen: thank you. i think that is a perfect point to segue into public comment. supervisor mar: i think we have already opened it up, so thank you. >> [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am glad you raised the question because i was not supposed to be talking about it because the three items on the agenda, i was just supposed to come here and say, "please pass this on to the full board, but

since you brought it up -- [laughter] 1, executive park, before it was named executive park, it was candlestick coat -- cove. it was temporary housing for the navy. as you know, executive park is in the hill of bayview hill. nowhere close to visitation valley. but what occurred was that lines were drawn from visitation valley over six lanes of highway of bay shore, through the community of little hollywood, under the freeway of highway 101, to claim that executive park was a part of the visitation valley. biggest lie in town. biggest blight in town.

then it was proposed that the developers -- i have been on that committee since its inception. those of us that where there never asked the developers for anything because they had to do all the infrastructure in order to get that project going and done. but here comes someone later say if they can get money out of the developers, and developers had to agree because they wanted to do their program, do the project. we asked them not to give nothing to visitation valley, but no. if they did not do it, they could not to the project, and that was unfair to the sponsors there. i do not like to see underhanded stuff going on, and when you asked about the benefits, i have been sitting there over 30 years. myself and shirley jones, who is not here, who is the president,

been sitting there hear all that time, we had never gotten any benefits and did not ask for any. it is unfair for you to try to just keep pumping these developers trying to do a job out there in my community. i want to see that project bailed out and done. thank you so very much and has this on, and do not give visitation valley a dime. i want those lines removed because when they were drawn, there was never a public hearing about that. i explained that to you. that is the reason why i am so upset of how things have been done in my community. and people do not care that do not live there. and they want to take away, but i can say this -- the planning department -- they said -- supervisor cohen: thank you. >> can i finish my conversation? supervisor cohen: you can finish your sentence. not the conversation. >> the city planning department voted.

since it was $30 billion, that $1 million go to bayview hunters point, $1 million to a little hollywood, and $1 million to visitation valley. when it came back to the supervisor, nothing went to us. everything was for visitation valley. supervisor cohen: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. professionally, i am a public affairs consultant involved in community relations work, working with private developers as well as public agencies on infrastructure projects. first of all, i would like to add my voice to ms. jackson's and encourage you to pass this on to the board of supervisors, the full board, and hopefully, the full board will approve the project and move it forward. i would just like to speak to the commitment that these developers have demonstrated -- by the way, i am not on their

payroll. i am not working with them, but as a professional in the area, having observed the kind of extensive work they have done over the past not five or six years, but the 30 years they have talked about being good community citizens, being good project sponsors who work with community to try to be responsive to the issues and concerns of the community, i think that is the kind of developers you want to see not only in this community but throughout the city, and it is the kind of project you want to see get done. i think both developers are to be commended for the work they have done, not just in terms of trying to address community issues and concerns when they were in the heat of the process of getting approvals like this, being before public bodies, but what you do not see is the presence they have just throughout the day, throughout the year, throughout the years

of being present in the community and working with community residents and business interests in the community to serve and be part of the southeast sector in the city of san francisco, so again, i would encourage you to approve this project and move it forward to the full board. supervisor cohen: thank you. reverend walker. >> madam chair, honorable supervisors, today, i represent the cabinet leaders development corp., the african-american committee, and i would like to sit up front, i definitely recommend the approval of this project, but i do think because ms. jackson there l. clay said,

and if in fact, it was determined that bayview-hunters point, that visitation valley, and little hollywood -- i'm not sure, i have not documented it -- if that is the truth, i think the committee should look at that and make sure everything is justified in that particular area. i would like to point out a few positive things. this product would bring in approximately $180 million in new development to the southeast section of san francisco. 1600 new first-class family housing units, 15 percent of which would be affordable or middle-income families. bring new stores and businesses to the community. it would be a green development bill to a sustainable standards. development with a maximum of community participation, and i can definitely say this project would be commendable to the

shipyard and candlestick point development. so i urge the supervisors to look at that and let this positive project continued. thank you very much for your consideration. supervisor cohen: thank you, reverend. next, i would like to ask mr. oscar james to come up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a native residents of bayview-hunters point. first of all, i would like for you to approve this particular project. i also served on the city commission in 1970 when this project first came aboard. we blessed it then. that particular time, we were representing some 65,000 people in the community, which was a part of visitation valley. our boundaries were from geneva, bay shore, all the way to highway 280.

we represented some 65,000 people. we were voted and elected by people in our community. but the irving corporation came to us in the early 1970's and asked for our endorsement on this project, which we did. we got a lot of things from them -- we got a lot of thanks from them. to this day, the corporation has lived up to the agreement. they make sure that people in the community are working. the major people in the city are working. also have an opportunity that we have 35% of our contractors being a part of that project, which they have built up to. we also had the opportunity to have business opportunities in the project. so i truly endorse this project. they are the only project -- and i have been working in my community since 1966, before redevelopment even came.

i was the youngest person on there. this is the only project that has lived up 100%. we did not have to look around to find out what they were doing. they lived up to that agreement, and there's no one in our area. we welcome them, but they would have to set an example. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, supervisors, al norman, bayview merchants, south beach facility commissioner. i would encourage you to approve this project. i do not think there is any other developer in the bayview

or anywhere else that i know what that knows more about diversity, diversity not only in employment in business. with the developers there, i was one of the persons who helped -- well, i did the plumbing in the first two buildings when they have the st. francis square developers out there. i did not have to go and beg and get on my knees and beg for any work. they came and asked me to be a part of their project. i'm not know of any other developer that ever came asked me to do anything other than these folks here. i strongly urge you to pass this to the full board so they can get on about their business. the only objection i have -- i would love for bayview-hunters want to get the $1 million that she talked about, but my biggest objection is they talk about vis valley.

they never say anything about sunnyvale project and the nonprofits out there working so hard and need the money to keep the violence and everything out of their neighborhood, and i hope you would give that consideration as you consider this matter, but please pass this project on. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you. in the president of bayview home neighborhood association, and i just want to reiterate what has been said before about the good stewardship and outrage that the project has done to the neighborhood. in fact, there is an executive park committee, which did not encompass the other side of the hill, other organizations and other residents, so we urge them to include candlestick point as well as bayview hill neighborhood association. they did, and we have been part of that advisory group for the last i guess four or five years. in addition to that, i just

wanted to add this one no. i urge the project to move forward because we really need balance in the bayview southey's sector. we need some balance of non- city, non-party-entitlement types of projects. we need substrate of economic development, and i think this project will provide that through market rate housing in the area. supervisor cohen: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on these items? ok, seeing none. supervisor mar: thank you, so public comment is closed. and then we have amendments before us. colleagues, can we take the amendments without objection? without objection. and then we are going to continue this until the next meeting, which is june 20.

without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone, for testifying. could you please call item four? >> item four, resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a multi-family housing revenue now in an amount not to exceed $41 million to provide financing for a rental housing project. supervisor mar: 90. this is sponsored by supervisor cohen as well. -- thank you. supervisor cohen: thank you very much. supervisor mar: if people could take the conversations outside the chambers, that would be appreciated. supervisor cohen: thank you. item four is a multifamily housing revenue note, and with that said, and i am going to and by the mayor's office of housing to come up and make a presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. >> the resolution before you is

authorizing the city to enter into a multifamily housing revenue note and related documents for an amount not to exceed $41 million. the financing would be used to help reconstruct the hunters view public housing. a severely distressed public housing development in the hunters point neighborhood. it will be using financing from our office. the federal home loan bank, san francisco housing authority, low-income housing tax credits. it will replace 80 out of the 267 public housing units in the neighborhood and construct 27 new affordable units in the first phase of the revitalization effort. the resolution follows a resolution that the board had approved back in march that authorized our office to apply to the california debt limit allocation committee for allocation taxes and bonds for up to $41 million for this project. we received that authority on april 26, and now, we are seeking your authorization to

enter into the financing documents to actually use that allocation. typically, our office seeks authorization to issue taxes and multifamily housing revenue bonds. they would be used to be publicly or privately sold or replaced with a bank like citibank, in which they would in turn use the bond proceeds and lend it to an affordable housing developer in the form of a construction loan. citibank prefers that these funds be categorized as loans rather than bonds, which will actually enable citibank to offer more competitive interest rates for the project. consequently, it is an alternative financing structure than we see with our typical bonds, but our office, our financial adviser, and the city attorney have reviewed the structure and found it substantially similar to our traditional bond structure and

concluded that it will actually be very beneficial to the project. as with our other multifamily housing revenue bonds, the city has no obligation to repay the bonds. we are acting truly as conduit finance is. in the case of hunters view, the note with citibank will be repaid with a $10 million loan from the state. approximately $24 million in low-income housing tax credit equities from enterprise community investment as well as $7 million in a loan from the city's hope sf program. the budget analyst concluded that the project has no fiscal impact on the city and consequently has not issued a budget analyst report for the item. i am here as well as our bond counsel and the project sponsor if you have any questions about our transaction. thank you. supervisor cohen: i have no question. supervisor mar: might understanding is this usually comes to the budget committee

and because of scheduling has come through land use. having visited the housing development a few years ago, i see how the 1956 building and the structure really needs to change, so this is the first hope sf project, i believe, and the residents really need this improvement. >> yes. we have a few others that are hopefully coming in the future, but this is definitely the first one with the shovels in the ground. supervisor mar: i know this is not really a finance question, but for all the programs, the existing residents are not going to be relocated until there is new housing that is available for them? >> correct, but one of the principles of the program is to do on-site relocation. what we have done in the first phase is relocated the existing families into the existing public housing so that they are not displaced offsite. that is definitely one of the intentions of the program. supervisorsupervisor mar: that y

appreciated given the travesties of other programs. i really appreciate that. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take this without objection and move it to the full board on june 14? thank you. please call item no. 5. >> the ordnance amending the code for updates. >> i am anne-marie rogers from the planning department. this is technical in nature. it corrects critical errors and makes language changes and updates various sections. it is really exciting stuff, i promise. the department reviewed over 62 pieces of legislation that would

amend the planning code. in my belief, the planning code may be the most amended of all of our municipal codes. it may be among the most frequently amended codes in the country. of the 62 ordnances we reviewed last year, about 21 of them were sponsored by our department. about 41 were sponsored by elected officials like yourselves. there is a lot of interest in the planning codes. with all this interest and these changes, over time there have been errors. text has been inadvertently dropped. amendments made in one ordnance are not reflected in the next. they have become out of date. this legislation is intended to correct the accumulated errors in planning code and update sections as needed. the planning commission initiated the ordinance in july of 2010. on august 5 of leicester, the recommended approval to the board of supervisors. originally the legislation contained amendments related to

historic preservation issues. since the planning commission action in august of last year, hpc has continued to have dialogue with the planning commission. as they continue in their dialogue about historic preservation issues, all of the modifications related to preservation have been pulled out to allow that conversation to continue. instead, we have all of the non historic preservation items before you. we hope to bring the rest forward in the coming months. with the ordinance before you, there has been another change since august of 2010. both the commission and the board have continued to approve planning code amendments since they acted in august. the ordinance before you as an updated to reflect all of those amendments that have occurred at the board in the intervening

months. the legislation amends things such as moving the net to 2500 because it was originally only supposed to move to the 2000 for one year. that was two years ago. we need to move it back to the proper location. in makes similar technical amendments i can describe in nauseating detail, but you probably do not want me to. supervisor mar: it is like three and 39 pages of nauseating detail. -- 3 and 39 pages of nauseating detail. it is everything from errors corrected to modernizing signs and planning regulations. i have no questions. colleagues, are there any other questions? supervisor cohen: i do not have a question. i am all questioned out. supervisor mar: let's open this up for public comment. mr. paulson. >> ♪ it is a miscellaneous

merkel make a miscellaneous miracle and dreams are made of amendments ♪ supervisor mar: thank you. anyone else from the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. can remove this item for without objection? -- we move this item forward without objection? thank you. i do not think this one needed to be a committee report. we have moved forward with a positive recommendation. please call the last item. >> item # 6, the hearing on the interagency plan. >> i am from the planning department. i will quickly go over the two reports in front of you.

they are both required by the ad men and planning code. they are annual reports. i think there from article 36 of the abdomen code called the interagency plan implementation committee. it is a mouthful. it is a committee set up to make sure all the good work we do in area plans for neighborhoods and upcoming plans, all the infrastructure, community improvements are being coordinated with all of the implementing agencies with the planning department taking the lead. this report is a progress report to our commission and to you about the work we've done each year. as you are probably aware, there has not been allowed development. therefore, a lot of impact fees have not been collected. that has been going slower than

anticipated. in the interim, we've been working hard on identifying grants that will help fund the projects identified. we were awarded at least one transportation grant in each area. the street buzz will be going twa's -- v haight street bus will be going both ways. in balboa park, we will be completing the field project. in the mission, we received a grant for new open space. those are some of the great accomplishments that have happened in the last year. we are also doing more detailed planning work so that we know the infrastructure we need to build in the coming years. we have also identified a few new funding tools. those have been before you. that includes recon hill.

we are looking at establishing rfd's in other areas as well. they have both done a lot of work in the last year. the market octavia created a list of priority projects. that has been integrated into all the work. the eastern neighborhood has been working on their prioritization process. they are new are. they also reviewed the future agreements -- a few of the agreements for improvements, including a child care center approved on third street. that is the first report in front of you. when you look for it, it does go through each area and talk about the accomplishments and how much revenue we anticipate. the sec report was drafted by the comptroller's office. it is much more of an accounting of all of the development impact fees. this cannot of article four. we put all of the impact fees in one cl