i am in opposition to supervisor olague's tree the planning department made a determination when it was first introduced. it did go to the building inspection commission where it was endorsed by the commission. as i noted, this is not changing density controls, bulk, rear yard or front yard setback. it is simply the building code. when a project goes through the process, there are multiple hurdles you have to get through. one of them is the building code and the other is density controls. the cu process and the other processes we have in san francisco -- there is no reason for this to go to the planning

department or to the planning commission as it is a building code change. i also want to respond to the one comment by supervisor olague that we need more family housing. absolutely. we need a lot of different kinds of housing. we certainly need more family housing. if you look at it -- the demographics, there are also a lot, we have a disproportionately high number of single people living in the city and they might be transitional age youth, they might be seniors, they might be students. the mib lgbt people living in the castro were we have a lot of people living alone and people who do not need a lot of space or cannot afford a lot of space and the bigger you build a unit, the more expensive it is. this does not in any way to require a developer to build smaller units. it is going to be the exceptional project where it would make sense to do that. all it does is give more flexibility in our very limited

land mass in san francisco to build different kinds of housing to meet the uncountable housing needs we have in the city. i appreciate the comments and agree we need more family housing but we need other count -- other kinds of housing as well. supervisor campos: just a question through the chair. i seconded supervisor wiener's motion to continue hoping that would provide a mechanism for everyone to maybe have more of a discussion on this. the hearing -- hearing what supervisor odious thing. i wonder if there is not a benefit to sending it to planning or having more discussion. what would be the problem with that to have everyone have an opportunity to have more

discussion and i know you are willing to make changes to address some of the concerns that have been raised. that is a question to the chair. supervisor wiener: it went to the dbi's committee which endorsed it and the building inspection committee endorsed it. the first land use committee hearing, we have seen with this legislation is there is a series of changing objections to it. every time there was first an objection raised about inclusion rehousing which it turns out if anything it benefits inclusion in housing. there are other objections that do not stand up. it has gone through significant process and all along, some folks who have had concerns have said why don't you just let new construction -- limit it to new

construction and that is what i'm proposing to do right now. it certainly does not need to go back to the planning commission or go to the planning commission. it has been there and it does not need to be there because it is a building code change. this has gone through significant process. it has gone through some folks who do not support it. i do not think it needs to go back to committee or a commission. supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that i believe it was heard at land use and housing committee on may 21, according to the note i have here. i was not aware that it had gone through that committee and i have been receiving some emails from constituents who would

like the opportunity to have another discussion about this. it is appropriate in many ways to have the planning commission way and but i would be happy with it go to the land use and housing committee one more time for review. i think some of the issues have to do with quality of life issues. when you are reducing the amount of level space by 70 feet, i think it is -- a race as a lot of questions in my mind. -- raises a lot of questions in my mind. accessibility, i would like to understand how the mayor's office on disability response to the reduction of units of this size and whether or not it does or does create -- does not create accessibility issues. i was curious about how these types of housing units have worked or not in other cities.

like san jose, seattle, and new york. i would like to reduce debt who lives in those units, what is the cost of those units, and what is the underlying zoning where these units are being placed. i have a lot of questions and it does cross my mind, should we limit this type of housing to as i mentioned earlier to just student housing? i wanted to kind of have the opportunity to ask certain questions and go deeper into 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.