necessary. >> supervisor, this is the language that actually accomplishes the exemption or the acknowledgment that the competitive bidding policy is not applicable here, so that is what this resolved section is intended to accomplish. >> the preceding section includes language exempting the competitive bidding requirement, why is this language necessary at all? >> to accomplish what it says, which is that i of the department -- if the department proceeds and negotiates entered -- into an agreement, that the board will not later say that it should have been competitively bid. it is not saying that the

agreement will be approved. it is saying that the board will not then say that the -- that it should have been competitively bid. >> again, i think if you are accepting the bid in the process, i did not see why you need to bind a future board from doing something. i do have a problem with that. supervisor avalos: just a question of -- interested in looking back local hiring. as we move forward, it is important, i believe, that as discussions start in the early stages that there is a real commitment put forward about hiring, you know, local residents, trying to maximize our local community hiring benefits.

it seems like a good place to start from the outset. just wondering what the status of those discussions have been around deployment. >> i think, supervisor, that it is clear that that is a serious issue for many members of the board. what we are doing as it is to get the green light from you today is moving forward on all cylinders. we will begin discussing that as quickly as we begin discussing all of the other issues that need to be put together. it is obviously a front burner issue, and we understand the board will be expecting to see where we're going on that as soon as we have had some opportunity to talk about it. >> that would be great. it seems we have asked you to use the spirit of local hire ordinance. it does not exactly apply, but if that could be used as a template, as well as end-user jobs that will be at the site as well, which i'm sure will be ample, especially if the warriors are only one portion of

the events that will be at the site. >> we hear you on that ladder and clear. supervisor chiu: -- loud and clear. supervisor chiu: i know one issue that has been raised is how we will promote a development that will enhance public access to the waterfront and protect view sheds and help create new ones. i just want to get a sense if you have any early thoughts on the commitment of this project. and i think the commitment comes from many different places. the warriors team has been clear from the very beginning that this is a huge issue, and we all recognize that there are a multitude of requirements along those lines in various planning documents that we have to meet, and we have already begun discussions, for example, with the planning department, in beginning to look at modeling how to use the work and where you put the facility on the pier.

i would say it is probably among the top two or three issues we will be dealing with. them are related to the comment about local hiring, which i completely agree with, i have had so many conversations with local designers and architects that are incredibly excited about the possibility of helping to design something that is truly iconic, and i do hope that in your discussions with the warriors that you are able to impress upon them how, i think, great it would be to be able to harness that creativity around local talent. >> yes, understood. supervisor mar: i am glad in conversations with residents from other neighborhoods around the area that oewd and the mayor's office had begun some communication, but i hope the stakeholders are involved in any meaningful way in the process. i believe -- i agree it is the perfect spot for the stadium,

but i agree that the strongest possible local hiring policies and laborers and labor are centrally involved as well. the mayor's office has communicated to me that local hire is a key priority. i look forward to working with you as well as that. supervisor kim: just referring to supervisor mar's point about outreach, when we met with the owner of the words, the first thing we could make clear was getting a commitment from them on initiating communities as soon as possible. both with neighborhoods that will be greatly impacted by the traffic and also the design of the arena, but also a larger community conversation around local hire, jobs, and any other benefits that the warriors would be bringing along with this

major development. the warriors have committed that we will be initiating these community meetings in the next couple of weeks, so we will be holding them in district 6, still confirming the states, but we will be doing a series of meetings. i think it is a key part, and i think it is important to go to the community before many of these processes have begun and to make clear when people ask questions that we do not know the answer yet, and this project, as amazing as it could potentially be, will potentially have an impact on the community, so i want to confirm that i really want to thank the warriors because of their openness and eager commitment to all of these meetings. it also have made it clear that local hire will be a key piece of the project moving forward, that i think we have enough support on the board of supervisors that we will want to see a vigorous commitment to local fire with this project. it, of course, does make sense

to ensure the folks that are currently working at the existing site -- of course, we do not want people to lose their jobs, so with all new jobs created by this, we want to see very rigorous out -- and commitment to hiring locally. very appreciative of the fact that they are also supportive of the small businesses that are in the area here from the get go, having that kind of commitment i think says a lot. just a couple of other things -- i know that our office has been semi-flooded with a lot of e- mails and concerns about this. i just want to assure the district that the commitment is to have an open dialogue with the warriors, and i really look forward to that. in light of the concerns around the, wanted to make an amendment that the board of supervisors -- support -- urges

support. i know it may seem like a small change, but i think it is a meaningful 14 waterflood residents. curious if supervisor campos has any proposed amendments around this. i think there is a level of flexibility to run this issue, so i am happy to detain any motions on the issues. supervisor chiu: do you want to restate your amendment? supervisor kim: know, my proposed amendment is on page eight, line 13. for the result that the board of supervisors to affected and

interested neighbors, community members and sticklers could share the proposed project and design with maximum public input. again, it is a minor change, but i think that kind of small change is very meaningful. >> -- supervisor chiu: i would suggest we take up all amendments after we close the public hearing. supervisor campos: i do have one change at like to propose along the lines i indicated. i still believe that the paragraph at the top of page 9 is not necessary, but i will leave that in with the caveat that i would like to change the language of the last paragraph on page 8 of the resolution and just checked with the city attorney's office to make sure that the change is understood, but what i propose is that in

that first resolved, that following the statement -- that we would change it to say as follows -- that the possible transaction with gsw, including for all purposes of this resolution, and the affiliated development, entity, or , orgsw may establish for the project as approved by the city for development of the site, and accordingly to the -- wait, let me rephrase that. we would change it to say that this possible transaction with gsw -- and we continue the parentheses that describe the transaction -- and then you have language that it is extended from competitive policy set

forth in administrative code 2.6-1, and then the rest would remain the same period it essentially makes a minor change so that it makes it clear not that the section does not apply, but that this section is exempted -- the project is exempted from being covered by that section. so that as my motion. supervisor chiu: that sounds innocuous to me. do you have any issues with that? >> it sounds like it achieves the same purposes for us. i would defer to the city attorney that there is no issue there, but it does not sound like it changes what we need to see out of the resolution. supervisor kim: i will second that motion. i apologize -- up to two lines i amended. the same word. that is my motion, changing the two words on page 1 and page 8. supervisor chiu: demotions are

seconded. any further questions? -- the motion is seconded. with that, what we got a further public comment -- why don't we go to public comment? this is about what the city ought to enter into negotiations as proposed in the resolution. then the members of the board of supervisors, director of san francisco open government. i have heard a lot of that service to the idea that citizens should be allowed input. the reason i question that is the fact that many of the city departments, especially under the current mayor, become very non-responsive when it comes to public information requests. for the public to fully participate and meaningfully participate in any sort of process, they have to be allowed access to the documents which are being discussed at the particular meeting. unfortunately, what we are finding very often in cases like

this, with the public is allowed to comment, is that they show up and there are no copies of the documents available, nothing was made available on the web site, said they are kind of talking into a black hole and really cannot say exactly what it is the objective. i know everybody is excited. we lost the 49ers, and now we're going to get another sports team. the bottom line is that often in these things, the rush to get it done precludes the public from meaningful participation. i mean, the first amendment that he took the pledge allegiance to at the beginning of this meeting means anything to you, it ought to be something that a member of the public who wishes to, and be given access to the records and documents and things which are public property in order to do so effectively. i think what happens is that city agencies get so determined that this is going to happen and it is going to be good that they decide it is within their

authority to withhold public records and public documents so that members of the public when they get to a meeting are sort of caught off at the past. so unless you are willing to say that you are going to make sure that the different city agencies fully comply with open government laws, it is all lip service. supervisor chiu: thank you. that speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jim lazarus, chamber of commerce. we strongly urge you to approve this resolution. this is probably the most exciting product -- one of the most exciting projects that will come before this board of supervisors. back to the mid-1970's when the board of supervisors approved the development of mosconi center and yerba buena gardens, the mid-1990's when we approved

the giants ballpark, and now, a potential arena, which has been in our minds but -- for decades. this is a key facility to the further development of recreation and visitor industry in san francisco, and we urge you to unanimously approved the resolution and work together in a cooperative way with the warriors and city, family, civic leaders, and community along the waterfront in developing what could be an iconic, world-class facility for the bay area. thank you very much. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker please. >> ♪ warriors golden state arena the city with the midas touch a golden touch

the gold basketball ringer get your half-court shot give it all you got give it all you got the gold ring your basketball give it your best shot we love the golden state warriors gold let the project unfold we love the gold ♪ supervisor chiu: slam dunk singing, walter. thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. this is a copy of my letter today to the board. i provided this board, the mayor, the warriors and port

commission a copy of my proposal to include a high school classroom inside the arena. i would like to read this short note that i wrote for the benefit of the public. i propose this on my website. i have been sending proposals to city leaders were about 25 years, starting with the giants in 1985. i also teach san francisco public high-school the last 10 years. please review my education and career development proposal. numerous public and private sector officials. i am requesting the original design and construction of a potential basketball are made up

on san francisco property be included with this collaboration a career path way accessible to our san francisco high school and college students, youth, and community. i wholeheartedly support the construction of a multi-purpose fastball and it facility with the of national simulation that supports the help of our entire community, a model for visionary facilities, a career-academy classroom capable of providing year-round real-world business experience, incentive, and innovation for our culture of diverse communities. i support this basketball arena, in just a reminder i appreciate all the -- the fact that all the agencies involved in this process -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you very

much. >> i am a pile driver and bridge builder. i heard you mention about the local hire. i want to know why i am still at home. i am a pile driver and a bridge builder, starting another job. the people who work there told me they could not pressure the contractor to hire cent and cisco residents. it is a joke. i need to be put to work. everybody working there now sees on the other side of the day. no tax is being paid in cent francisco. i know this already because i am not working. supervisor chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in this public, with regards to the warriors? seeing none, public comment is

closed. colleagues, unless there are any questions for discussion for city staff, what we consider this hearing to have been held and closed. with regards to the underlying resolution, we have a couple of motions to amend. collets, can we take the motion without objection? without objection, the amendment is adopted. supervisor campos had a motion to amend. can we take that without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. mr. clark, could you read the role? >> on item 30 as amended -- supervisor olague: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye.

>> there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: the resolution as amended will be adopted. it could call the items related to eight washington -- that will be items 20, 21, 27, and 20, out of land use and out of budget. >> item 20 is a resolution approving a public trust exchange, an agreement to sell a portion of seawall lot 351 in exchange for a portion of block 168-lot 50, block 171-lot 69, and block 201-lot 12, approval of lease and maintenance agreement. 21 is an amendment -- amending resolution of intention to form water from infrastructure financing district. item 27 is an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the height and bulk district classification of two areas along the drum street frontage property. item 28 is amending the general

plan amendment for the washington street project. >> thank you. as you recall, in the middle of may, we considered the eir for this project. most of you know that last week, both at land use and at our budget committee, there were two hearings to consider various items related to the project approvals, which we have in front of us. in case not every single one of you watched every single minute of those hearings, i wanted to take a moment to summarize the main points we learned in those two committees. for the record, both committees pass these items out without a recommendation. first of all, out of land use, we understand that this is a project asking for truly significant an extraordinary violence. the 62% hike increase, 200% will increase, 400% parking increase. many of us were eager to learn from the budget committee what benefits the city would receive

in return for providing the developer the extraordinary entitlements that he could be provided through the project approvals today. many of us were surprised to hear from our budget analyst at our budget analyst estimates for the financial benefits to the city for this project were about $50 million less than what the port or developer were telling us. $96 million compared to $145 million. colleagues, i hope that he would take a moment to think about this. what we were told we -- were going to be provided to us by this project was 1/3 less -- literally close to $50 million less value. in the budget analyst report, they point out that there are few financial benefits to the project -- beyond what is required by statute, and there are questions whether the transfer fee mechanism is a tax that could be deemed legal down the road. the budget also questioned why the city has to pay the

developer $5 million to create open space. supervisor kim suggested and i know she worked out with the developer for the number of parking spots to be reduced. one thing i mentioned, the developer stated to was that each parking spot had a value of about $150,000, which is expensive, given that we are essentially building a back up into a water basin -- a bath tub into a water basin right along the waterfront. i wonder if you could say a few words about your budget analyst analysis. i know you amended your statement, and provided us with an addendum. it could give us a little bit of information about your analysis and thoughts at this time. >> mr. president, members of the board, yes, as you know, the budget and finance committee did request that we go back and see if we can reconcile the differences between the port's

numbers and hours. as shown in the table -- this is on the second page of our june 8, 2012 memorandum to the board of supervisors, we estimate that the net present value of financial benefits for the city are $96,301,820, and that is $48,630,017 less than the financial benefits, estimated by the port, and if you wish, ms. campbell can clarify this offenses. supervisor chiu: that would be great. >> good afternoon. i will just follow up on what mr. rose said, which is we -- the $40 million defense, we

disagreed with $34 million, but they included in financial benefits to the city that we do not believe our financial benefits. that includes $3.8 million in permit revenues, which the city departments would occur in cough, but we do not think that could be included. $2.3 million for what they consider to be the increased value. this would be existing property, but at the same time, they are also counting the cost of improvements that would increase the value. we did not agree with any of the $15 million in parking benefits. parking is revenue-generating and did not provide anything to show that the developer's cost of constructing and maintaining the parking would exceed any revenue, and $12 million for construction does not have any

public benefit. that is the $34 million they included that we do not consider public benefits. $1.9 million is work on parking revenue is that the port would otherwise have received as maintaining it as a parking lot. $7.5 million means the actual value, and the port did not consider it a value that the developer would receive from that property. and $5 million in infrastructure, financially distinct revenues that the city under paid to a developer. that summarizes the $40 million. supervisor chiu: thank you, and a very much want to thank the

budget analyst for their work on this. as you probably heard, the developer has thrown in a couple of last-minute sweeteners into this project. from my perspective, i view these as pennies into a half million dollar deal. if i could summarize a couple of them, the developer will allow 12 kits to the department to use the pool for 12 hours a week. it is currently open seven hours a week, so allow two hours of 70 is less than 1%, not as generous as i would have hoped. you have seen the clarification letter that says that current club users will have reciprocal memberships at other facilities during the construction. i do know that mr. snow growth has repeated this obvious commitment for a number of years. certainly, as you probably saw in e-mail today, the developer has agreed that the recreation parcel will be in perpetuity, but i would point out this is not something that the developer has given up but something that the land owner has given up. given the fact that this deal is

worth a significant amount of money, one of the issues that many of us have had questions about is if the city is getting inappropriate level of benefits based on the level of profits that the developer is receiving. i have circulated to all of you my understanding of what some of the financials in this project could entail. i will summarize a couple of them. as i have stated a couple of weeks ago, the projected sales of the condos -- and this was confirmed by the developer and in our budget analyst report -- is close to half a billion dollars. we're talking $470 million that the developer hopes to get from the project. the construction costs that we know $177 million. even assuming 35% of costs on top of this, which i have been told is quite generous from real-estate developers, we're talking to low-cost for the developer of around $274 million.