i would like to introduce my colleague who has worked on this legislation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the planning commission heard the legislation on june 2, 2010 and voted unanimously to approve the legislation with modifications. supervisor campos touched on some of the modifications that have been made. when they were not associated with an historic resources -- the also modify proposed legislation to offer three- dimensional signs in new locations with authorization, as specified in the ordinance. the section of the planning code does not by itself protect a sign from been obscured or removed by future development projects, particularly when those projects advance planning

department goals and plans. we would like to thank supervisor campos for it those modifications. supervisor mar: thank you. si no questions from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment -- seeing know, questions from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment. mr. decosta. >> my name is francisco decosta. supervisor campos i would like to commend you for this legislation. there are many such signs all over our city that need to be preserved. when you say "vintage," i think

about wine. [laughter] the best thing is you are moving forward. of like to see -- and maybe this is for the planning department -- we need to do something to preserve our murals. thank you very much. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward for a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. the attorney? >> it has to sit in committee for another meeting. is that correct? and my apologies -- this is for diet coke, not a:. [laughter] supervisor mar: we will continue

this for the next meeting? >> you need to approve the amendment first. supervisor mar: without objection, colleagues. we will continue this for our next meeting, which is scheduled for -- >> july 11. supervisor mar: july 11. thank you. colleagues, we're hearing item #2, the hearing on the muni t- line performance at the end of the action item. without objection, colleagues, can we take item #three out of order? >> item #3, ordinance amending the zoning map to change 2451 sacramento st.. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the legislation that is before you would be is done a parking lot -- would re-zone a

parking lot. it is at the corner of sacramento and fillmore. the yellow area would change to this blue area for the commercial district. it would result in a 400-foot swath on both sides of sacramento st., both sides would be the same, and it would not change the height at all. the lot is in between an existing one-story commercial building on fillmore street, and the san francisco housing authority would like to live with us this under-use property. this gives us the opportunity for a mixed-use development in the future that the diversified

commercial and residential uses in this area. it would not negatively impact the district, and the re-zoning would equalize the ncd district. the commission recommended approval of the section on february 24 of this year. i am available for questions. supervisor mar: colleagues? seeing no questions, are there any members of the public like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward with a positive recommendation without objection? >> we have the committee report for tomorrow. supervisor mar: ok, can we move this as a committee -- as a committee report with a positive recommendation? thank you. please call item -- actually,

should we call items four through six together? >> item four, ordinance amending the san francisco general plan by amending the it's a two-part sub area plan, item five, executive park special use district, item number six, executive park subarea plan area. supervisor mar: thank you. i believe we have a report from planning on items four through six. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i believe we did a presentation for you on this item last week, and we had quite a bit of discussion and public comment. this was held over for a week to put on those -- to put on notice the one change by the committee, which is the moving of the potential to our site one block

to the east from the original proposal. we have no further information for you. we are here if you love questions -- if you have any questions. supervisor mar: thank you. seeing none questions, we will open it up for public comment. who from the public would like to ask a question? >> good afternoon. espinola jackson. i would hope that you would pass on -- except when i was here at the last meeting, my request at that time was district 1 01 of the planning code, when lines were drawn from visitation valley across six lanes of the highway to the bayshore, under highway 101, that claims

executive park is part of visitation valley. i said at that time, at executive park is in the bayview. it is in the hills. but also said about the comments that was made for the planning commission -- what i want to do is have that deleted, because there was no -- there was never a hearing in my community concerning the fees in the project, and that my community was made part of. and i have been there in bayview hunters point since 1948, so, i know the community. i know when the lines was drawn, and when they were was drawn. and i said in the city planning book, and it has been there for years -- bayshore to the bay.

it used to be armand street. thank you. i hope you do something about that. i will see if you take care of business for bayview hunters point and clear up my community. none of those fees have come before us been been -- a, forced. thank you very much. >> supervisors, i have the hot topics. -- 2 topics. the advocates who come here to testify, they come here for a purpose. they have been coming here a long time.

some of us to deliberate fail to comprehend -- there was a time [unintelligible] people like espinola jackson, and through our legislation -- i am going to categorically state when you cross over the bay shore, this is exactly what you should do. this was done by a former supervisor to accommodate some of her cronies. this has to be fixed. secondly, i have an office at executive park, and as i stated before, i would love this project to go forward, but i

would also like to bring your attention that this project should have gone forward five years ago. but are planning department sided with lennar and put this project on the back burner. d-e-a-d. which is good. we have decided to end the planning department and the planning commission, they have decided this project should go forward. so, let this project forward. i know again and gain -- again, this planning will have to come of for a land use, the planning department, the board of supervisors, and we will be there. but, to the people at home, this

is one body, the land use body, if something is not done legally and is done illegally, it is like a lie, and the lies are repeated and repeated and repeated. and the lies become the truth. supervisors, you should know that if you are educated on the issues, if you really know how planning works, this is the process. last time i was listening to the deliberation and -- [chime] i want this to go forward, but the line should be adjudicated. supervisor mar: thank you very much. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is

closed even -- public comment is closed. can i just ask the city attorney to address the legal question, that perhaps the lines have been drawn a legally? i know, i think it is terrible when neighborhoods are bitter, such as hunters point. i would just ask for some rationale for how these will be impacting them. >> i just want to fine-tune what supervisor mar is asking. the developers developing executive park will have fees, and these fees will actually go toward projects in visitation valley. we're just trying to get clarification on how that happens.

>> john lamott from the city attorney's office. the lines for visitation valley was a legislative matter. the determination that it was inappropriate area to have these collected and have this area be used -- so, it is entirely up to the board of supervisors as a policy as to where to set the boundaries. supervisor cohen: could you give me a recommendation on how we can correct this? since it was a previous legislative matter? for the record? >> you could make a request for a legislative amendment to the fee boundaries.

and we would process it. we would processes with the city attorney's office and the planning department and it would go through the standard process, the planning commission, and ultimately the board. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor mar: so, my suggestion is we vote on the three items. hopefully supervisor cohen can engage members of the different neighborhoods, and potentially we could have an amendment to share the impacts and not to leave hunters point out in the cold, which the speakers employed, and also getting more of the historic context of may be why there is a rationale for this alley -- another neighborhood that has been neglected historic plea as well,

they have tremendous needs as well. this needs to be considered on balance. i see no reason to hold up the legislation based on those items. was there any context that can be given from the planning department? >> hi, again. i was not involved in that myself. there's a lot of history i am not exactly aware of. i would like to make a couple points to -- i would like to make a couple points. circumstances change. issues change. we are talking about an impact fee boundary. named vis valley, primarily vis valley. the effort is to connect executive park to the surrounding neighborhoods. it is kind of in a corner, and it is under the tunnel, under the freeway.

it is one of the primary moves were this is happening in project. supervisor mar: but now with the hunters point lennar development, it connects up more with hunters point? >> correct. that is correct. there is large growth potential happening behind the hill, all that will connect through this valley, which has its non-public improvement program, infrastructure, neighborhood amenities, etc., and that will be within the hunters point project. i think part of the issue, and this is going back to the timing of when that line was drawn, executive park was moving forward, and it was not a mechanism or place for impact and to put structure in place. independently to garner public

benefits, community improvements. so, it was the seemingly logical thing. the feedback we have been getting is largely from folks back in vis valley. other types of books and been very active in this project. -- other types of folks have been very active in this project. to me, that would tell me why it is connected to the vis valley, because we do have impacts over in vis valley and we do not have the same kind of mechanism in terms of internalized impacts. i was not involved myself. but i imagine that would explain it. supervisor mar: thank you. i know the members from supervisor cohen's office could

shed light on that. maybe we can convene a meeting to think of some and then that could move this forward. supervisor cohen: i would like to ask a quick question. correct me if i am wrong, but there is nothing in the legislation that requires the money go to visitation valley, right? this is merely an option? >> i would probably have to familiarize myself with the fee program, but usually there is a verification, and it is something that would be expanded again through legislation that could be modified to include additional things.

i would remind the committee that whenever we have a nexus feethere needs to be a connecti. in connection demonstrated between the impact of a particular project and the program to which the fee revenues would be put. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, we have items four, five, and six before us. my understanding is it is not noticed for that. without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone. can you please call item 7 and 8 together on the local hiring mou is san the teddy upcounty and the tolling agreement?

>> the memorandum of understanding with san may take no county regarding local hiring for construction contracts. item eight, approving a tolling agreement with san mateo county. supervisor mar: thank you. we have a member of the office of oewd. >> i am from the office of economic and workforce development. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. our office is pleased that after about two months of conversations with our colleagues in san mateo county, that we have been able to enter into a reciprocity agreement for our local mandatory hiring program. the mou that is before you pour consideration is essentially expands the definition of -- that is before you act essentially expands the definition of projects to include residents of san mateo county, as well as san francisco

residents, for that work. our current program for projects only in san mateo county, a contractor would be able to poll workers from either san francisco or san mateo county to meet the mandatory requirement. that is is essentially the mou. the tolling agreement was a request that the san mateo county had. our office, from a policy perspective, working with the city attorney's office, felt that making this tolling agreement with san mateo with respect to the local hiring legislation would not put us in a negative position, and it was a matter that san mateo county was quite interested in having. we felt that, from a policy perspective, it would not impact our ability to continue to move the program forward. it there is any questions, happy to answer, and i encourage your support. supervisor mar: thank you.

colleagues, seeing no question, let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? ms. jackson. >> good afternoon. i am asking you to please pass on this, because it has been over a year now, almost two years, that we have worked on at this for local hiring here in san francisco. and there is going to be a meeting at 3:00 here at city hall to talk about giving an update on how the local hiring has been going. and that will be in room 278 with avalos on june 22, so i am asking you to pass this. and thank god, we got it. thank you. supervisor cohen: if you can is replete that for the listeners at home.

>> for the listening audience, it will be a 3:00 p.m., city hall, room 278. an update will be given on how local hiring has been going on since it has been approved by you, the board of supervisors. and i wanted to say, because i do not think that will get up here again, those of you that are watching and knew my brother, daniel young, he passed yesterday morning, and his body will be at lewis, and i think that funeral is on friday. daniel young was born and bred here in san francisco. his birthday was november 1956. that was my baby brother. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. i am sorry for your extended family.

>> supervisors, you know that supervisor john avalos and some of you supervisors who are in favor of local hiring did a lot, maybe for the first time, to safeguard employment here in san francisco. and i have heard guillermo come over here and make some statements, but i would like that whatever this adjudication was done with assemblyman hill to whoever was part of the deliberation that this be put on the internet for us to know. we have many projects in that area, san mateo, linked with the sfpuc. and we will like to know how

exactly we can address those projects. a lot of the projects suggest that puc, even though sfpuc is the lead agency and is headquartered in san francisco, when it comes to the projects in san mateo, we really do not have any guidelines now. we need to know from this deliberation what transpired. so it is good that it came to this meeting for the public at home and many of us who are involved with real work force, because we put people to work. we need to know the deliberations. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a quick question for you. mr. da costa. i am curious, when you say what transpired, are you looking for

a copy of the meeting? >> no, there is the head of the department, and he is saying that he met some people with san something. whatever they mutually agreed to represents the city. i am a constituent of the city and county of san francisco, but also, i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, and i am involved with work force, real work force. we have a hub where we have businesses, and we give them certification. then we see that they get a contract, and we see that young people work. but we want to do the proper way, and we want to understand, because we go to a jurisdiction like the san mateo and we will want to know what's -- i am reqs

good that they met and came to some understanding, but i am saying, work force, generally, is very sensitive. thank you very much. >> man and ask him to come out, and maybe you can provide some

answers to some of the questions that mr. da costa said specifically on what transpired. is there a resourced or meeting notes linked to a website? just provide us a little bit of transparency as to what happened and how the disagreement came about. >> the legislation that was passed for mandatory local hire created an opportunity for the city and county of san francisco to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions. the idea was that the construction industry, it is a regional industry. of the understanding that san francisco has many projects that are outside of our city limits, and we needed an opportunity to be able to share of the success of our local mandatory program with other jurisdictions where the work that san francisco was funding would