what type of housing are we advocating for here, and as far as quality of life, basic quality of life issues, are we making sure there is certain standards in place which i am sure we are. i'm wondering how this type of housing has worked in other vicinities, that is all. supervisor chiu: thank you. there are concerns that have been raised. i want to thank supervisor wiener. i hope this will go a long way for dealing with these concerns. i asked supervisor wiener, he had asked -- the about this -- thought about continuing this

for a week. i also know that supervisor wiener has suggested that with regards to construction or changes to buildings that do not involve new construction, that will continue to the legislative process and will go back to the building inspection commission or land use. if folks the planning or individuals on the planning commission want to review this, that is something that is within their purview. i do expect there will be a continued process on the other half of this legislation but as far as this goes, i will be supporting the motion to continue this item for a week so that we can get feedback from the community and hear hopefully the amendment that has been made addresses the main objections i now have been enlisted in recent weeks. supervisor mar: this is a great discussion. at land use committee, we have

had discussions on this item. i suppose -- supports the effort to look into different neighborhood boys is, a special affordable housing advocates. supervisor wiener is proposing another proposal to continue this for a week that i really concerned -- to appreciate but i know supervisor bloody has urged us to send it for a fuller analysis to the planning commission. the vice president had urged the same although the staff were supportive of the legislation. it is a dilemma. i have been reading the correspondence from a number of neighborhood and housing advocates that seem very united in urging us for a full analysis. i think moving toward that direction to have that more deeper analysis, although i suppose -- support the effort to continue it for a week. supervisor cohen: thank you.

i will come in closer. thank you, mr. president. i would like through the chair, i wanted more of an explanation of why she would want to send it back to land use and economic devilment committee. i am interested in hearing what the goals of -- are of hearing this again. supervisor olague: i did not see a lot of analysis around issues that might affect quality of life. we have had in the past when i was sitting there at the planning commission, we did see some smaller units projects come before us. there was one instance i can remember where we had this -- we had to send the project back to the developer coz -- because there was not enough consideration given to light, air, and some other types of quality of life types of issues.

i think it is a very small size of unit. 150 square feet. we're going from 220 livable space and reducing it significantly. in the eastern neighborhoods, it might have an impact on density control. what does that mean when we are encouraging more residents into certain areas? i guess it does not trigger an environmental report but i wonder about the environmental analysis piece of it. and where with this typing -- this type of housing go? where would it be allowed? this is something we can already do. when we're talking about reducing the livable space by that amount, it is significant. even if it is something the building code in the state allows for.

there is a developer in berkeley who built some of these types of projects before. i would like the opportunity to understand how that has worked in other cities. who lives in those units, how much they pay for them, and how it does or does not respond to our overall housing needs of the city and the overall housing program. i know that we have talked about needing more affordable housing. we talked about single room occupancy hotels which definitely fill the need for workhorse -- workforce housing. many of them were built to supply a type of housing for certain work force. i am wondering what type of housing are we talking about here? what we talked about sro's,, it

does touch the quality of life. there is relaxed code around single occupancy hotels. that does not necessarily apply to efficiency units. i want a little bit more information just to satisfy myself and maybe i end up saying this is wonderful, it is great, let's do it. and other members of the public who raised concerns may have to share the same. we may decide to limit this type of housing to just student housing because that is what some people have suggested. in -- i want to look at it more closely and have a bit more robust discussion. supervisor cohen: you believe that the most appropriate place for this robust discussion to happen in the planning department? >supervisor olague: they can look at it from a housing needs

perspective. they can look at it from quality of life. just a lot of different density issues in some of these areas like the eastern neighborhoods and project areas. it seems to have a certain level of expertise in the have seen these types of project before. what do they think about this type of project? does it or does not work? >> -- at the minimum i would like land used to schedule a time when members of the public could come and just have some more discussion about it. that is all. because i know it came and went i was not -- and i was not aware of that. i do not know if i will get answers to my questions in a week. supervisor kim: thank you. i wanted to support supervisor olague on referring it back to

at least land use is not dbi or planning. it is not about whether i support this or not. it does not hurt to get a better understanding of what these units are supposed to be doing. a lot of it will be built in the district i represent in south of market. i have been approached by a number of developers who want to build a studio efficiency apartments to address a lot of the housing shortage needs but what i am seeing is folks that want to build a very expensive student efficiency units. i do not know if i would define them as affordable by design. that is an issue that i have wanted to have a larger discussion about. why are we building these units, what are they for? if it is a means of addressing a moderate income housing, that is a different question, but i do not think that a steady and for the discussion will heard that. based on what comes out of this,

it could be something that week unanimously support. at the time, i have a couple of questions. i do not think it hurts for us to spend more time trying to address that before we move forward with this. the biggest thing in my understanding is finding out why the previous 220 square feet is outdated and 150 for a common living area is better and i and want to understand where that push is coming from. supervisor campos: thank you. it has been an interesting and substantive discussion. the more i hear about this issue, the more it seems we could benefit from having a broader discussion. these are the issues that is so

hard to fully understand questions and ramifications, it is appropriate for us to take our time. i will be supporting an effort to send it back to committee so that a broader discussion can be had. my hope is that we have an opportunity to come up with something that we can all live with. i think supervisor wiener has raised some very important points through this legislation and i am hopeful that we can work out and come up with something that can work for everyone. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. in terms of thinking about efficiency units, i am just trying to get my head about it. i support the motion to continue for a week. that would provide us with an opportunity to understand how we

can change or pullout the legislation that does not impact areas where people are concerned. also to see if the legislation can move forward and have conversations around the issues people have brought appear separately. the approach that supervisor wiener had set out, that would have been an appropriate one. that would have had the same conversation. we would have had a week to see if we could send this item back. supervisor olague had talked about a few things she was concerned about and she would have appreciated going back to the planning commission, including configuration of space and quality. i want to know -- this is areas that would be applied where places are not part of the density or density units were

not part of legislation. this is areas where it is not necessarily regulated. their height and bulk requirements and requirements for open space tucson and light. some of these areas have unit mix requirements as well. i do not think that legislation would create a free-for-all. all this and you would not have 10 we could not have any. it would conform to the existing processes that have been set out. supervisor farrell: thank you. i have gotten comments about this from different neighborhood groups. it warrants more time. i will support supervisor wiener's motion today to send -- continue its four week. with the understanding i would like to see how the next week goes and i will work with my neighborhood groups on the

impacts. along the van ness corridor, people have concerns. i want to make sure those get addressed and signaled willingness to continue its further if we do not get it addressed in the week. i would love to work on it next week and see where it goes. supervisor wiener: just a couple of quick points. right now our housing codes has a minimum of efficiencies for 144 square feet. if you take a building that has 144 square feet, rooms and convert them to student housing, what ever it is and you're not doing any construction to implicate the building code, you can do that. there are problems we're aware of. projects that are in the 150 foot range already. in terms of limiting it to student housing, that was asked by the dbi code advisory

committee. it is not legal to have a building code that applies to only certain types of inhabitants but not others. we revised and we could not do that. one thing i -- in terms of the link that the continuance, and made a motion for one week. it might be good to go even to three weeks to give us plenty of time to hammer this out and not have to have another discussion next week. i think -- supervisor chiu: four weeks would be to july 10. supervisor wiener: let's move it to july 10. supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener has amended his motion to continue out to july 10. i understand or moshin, -- your motion, supervisor olague. supervisor olague: i want to

make sure the public has a place they can come and get input. if there is some discussion that takes place among us -- i want to make sure the public has the opportunity to speak to the issue. supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this to july 10. it was seconded by supervisor campos and supervisor campos will support supervisor olague's moshin. is there a second of supervisor wiener's to continue? -- to refer this to land use and the second to that was supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener's moshin takes precedence. is there any further discussion? >> your motion is not to send it back to the planning commission. you're saying send it to land use. we have a past agenda -- packed agenda to the legislative season. it will be impossible to hear

it before we take off for a legislative break in august so i am warning you. supervisor wiener's proposal to extend the time that you have for input for a month basically here makes a lot of sense to me. i do not think we will. within the next few weeks in land use. there is no way we can do that given the agenda. supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that there are areas where density controls do not apply. in the rto, density controls have been lifted. those were intentionally done where density controls do not apply. supervisor chiu: on the motion to continue this item to july 10. >> supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye.

supervisor avalos, aye -- no. supervisor campos, no. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor chui, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, no. supervisor mar, no. four no's and six ayes. motion to continue to july 10. supervisor olague: it is fine. we will go with three weeks and see where we end up with that. supervisor chiu: why don't we go to item 26? >> exercising the agency

purchase option for fourth street. for the development and operation of affordable housing. supervisor chiu: roll-call vote? >> supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chui, aye. supervisor: , aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. to riser kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye. supervisor chiu: the resolution is adopted. it is just before 8 -- 3:00 p.m.. unless there is an objection, we will go to the special order.

if i could ask mr. rich, do have a presentation for us? we need to call item 37 before we do that. if we could please call 37, 29, and 30. >> the public hearing on a public -- a resolution and holding public comment on that before we go into the other item. supervisor chiu: any supervisor chiu: is there any public comment on whether we should sit as a committee as a whole with a sole source said she asians? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, that shall be the case. items 29 and 30.

>> item 29 is a committee as a whole hearing regarding the warriors are read the sole source negotiation, and item 30 is a resolution regarding the warriors arena project. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the office of economic and workforce development. it is our pleasure to be before you to ask you to help us begin the process of working with the golden state warriors on a potential transaction that would allow the team to construct a few from the waterfront facility. this is merely the opening tipoff. the action before you is limited in scope and authorizes only the following preliminary -- finding that the competitive bidding policy in the ad man code does not apply in this coast and allowing the city and that in detailed discussions with the warriors' organization on a potential real-estate transaction, recognizing oewd as

the leader for negotiating the project, working with board staff and at the direction of the commission, urging all parties to engage in our reach to all affected and interested neighbors and stakeholders, including the san francisco giants, urging oewd and teh port to work closely with the state lands commission and urging staff to make this project a high priority. the authorizations outlined above are the full extent of the proposed action in front of you today. nothing in this resolution approves or endorses any aspect of a potential future real estate transaction with the warriors. i would like to take this opportunity briefly to give you a high level preview of our schedule and process moving forward. once authorized by you to do so via today's resolution, the city staff team will begin detailed discussions with the warriors on

the transaction and also began developing a project description that delineates exactly what facilities are proposed on the pier and the seawall lot. in september, we plan to be back in front of you with a term sheet and fiscal feasibility is for your endorsement. at that point, we will begin the environmental review process and in parallel with that, work with the warriors on the designing of the arena and associated facilities. at the end of 2013, we expect it the planning commission for certification, eventually thereafter in front of this body again for approval of the real estate transaction. as you know, we will also need approvals along the way from bcdc, the state lands commission, the port commission, and other bodies. throughout this process over the next two years or so, we will certainly be available to keep the board apprised of our process.

last but certainly not least, i want to discuss community outreach. this is a large project with significant locations for the neighborhood and stakeholders surrounding it. these include views, transportation and parking, access to the waterfront, neighborhood amenities, and more. we are staffing up to do this, and faults of the season as opportunities in the very near future. in closing, i want to reiterate our commitment to an efficient, transparent, and inclusive process that we are confident will result in a waterfront facility that will be the envy of the world. thank you, and i am available for any questions. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to thank you for your presentation. just have a couple questions, and i do not know if they are necessarily directed at you for

the city attorney's office. in terms of moving forward with this project, and i speak as the supervisor who was very supportive of the warriors coming to san francisco, i wonder legally, what is the necessity of this kind of resolution. >> in a sense, this resolution is at the outset in forming the mayor's office and the department that they may go ahead and proceed with negotiations and that competitive bidding will not be applied to this because the board has found a purpose, and a competitive bidding requirement or policy of the city is not applicable here. supervisor campos: i appreciate that. putting aside the competitive bidding peace in terms of the other elements of this resolution, including

designating oewd as the lead negotiator, some of the other points embedded in the resolution, i was just trying to understand what legal necessity of those points work. >> designating oewd -- i do not think that as a legal necessity. i think that is a policy matter. >> if i could acknowledge, the port commission has designated the mind of previous action a couple of weeks ago, and this resolution trust acknowledges that that occurred. supervisor campos: ok, it is mainly a policy statement with respect to those items? >> and i suppose it is intended to give clarity as far as who is the city's designated negotiator. supervisor campos: ok, and if we could go back to the issue of competitive bidding.

again, i do not have a problem with the negotiation beginning, even if you have a sole source process, but i do have a question about the language that is here. i am trying to understand why the language used is basically that section. to me, there are good reasons from a public policy standpoint for weaving competitive bidding in this case, but that is different from saving -- for waiving competitive bidding in this case, but that is different from saying that that section does not apply. as think there are good policy

reasons not to have a competitive bid in this case. >> under 2.61 of the administration cut, it provides that where the board finds the bidding procedures are impractical or impossible or where the board finds that the -- proceeding without a competitive bidding process would serve a public purpose that the board can waive that requirement upfront. supervisor campos: again, and i think i agree with that. i agree it would be appropriate to waive that requirement, but i think that is a very different one than saying that the requirement does not apply. i do have a question and concern about the language because i think it is appropriate for us to wait competitive bidding here, but that is different from saying that competitive bidding does not apply -- i think it is appropriate for us to waive

competitive bidding. why not change the phrasing so that you are saying in accordance with this section of the code, we have decided that in this case it is not afraid to conduct competitive bidding, or at least begin a negotiation as opposed to simply making the statement that the section of the code does not apply. >> perhaps you may want to change it so that it says that the provisions are exempt. supervisor campos: that is another way of doing it, too. that is one question i have. again, i do not have a problem with the substance of what we are trying to do, but i do think that how we reference our administrative code matters. the second question i have is

with respect to the language on page 9, and it is the section at the top of the -- of that page that says, "further resolved that should the port commission and gsw agree on mutually acceptable terms" and it continues to say that the board of supervisors will not continue to disapprove a proposed lease and other real estate transaction agreement on the basis that they do not satisfy the competitive bidding policies set forth in administrative code 2.61 -- i have a problem with that section. i do not think that we, as a board, should be in the business of saying what a future for of supervisors will or will not do. i think we should focus on the issues that are at hand, and i actually wonder whether or not this section is