since she is not here. i'm not trying to be funny, but to balance the duck -- balance the pocket, and subject to reassignment, that would be my recommendation. i am sure i will be getting a phone call tomorrow morning about this. there is nothing further on 4a. 4b is scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. president marshall: alrighty. i think the lieutenant has let us know that august 11 is law enforcement appreciation night with a game at the giants? >> that is correct.

president marshall: i guess asking if we want to continue that this year. that would be august 11. vice president mazzucco: if it would let officers attend the game, i would be in favor of that. commissioner hammer: i have attended the game before and the giants put on a good production. our law enforcement officers families who died in the line of duty in oakland, san jose, san francisco, the surrounding areas, it is a class act. it in honor of those officers and officers who want to attend, i think that would be a good idea. president marshall: i think that is agreed by everyone. commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: thank you. two minor matters. we had discussion here about the possibility of tweaking the rules in terms of discipline. one of the weaknesses is the hearing officer procedure, the

case is set out, it floats, and it drags on at times. there's also a provision that the hearing officer then files a report with us. i'm told that can take two, three months at times. i like to put on an agenda of discussion and possible action on two possible tweaks to that. one is setting a timeline on a case that is set to a hearing officer, perhaps 14 days or so, that if a trial date does not come up we could come back to us. the second would be the hearing so that within 10 days, a much shorter report. we'll have to read these transcripts. i don't think we need somebody else to read them and digest them to read them ourselves. i like to put on the agenda a couple of minor tweaks to that hearing officer provision so what would work better for us. i am open to whatever commissioners would want. vice president mazzucco: i agree. it also made to expedite it further, maybe we should ask for

the hearing officer to come to the commission in closed session and have the hearing officer explain to us what their position on the case is without having to put it in writing. obviously, the ultimate decision is made by the commission after reviewing evidence and transcripts. the written report is merely a recommendation, and to do that verbally and is much more expeditious. commissioner hammer: that is a better idea than i have. we want the flavor, the color of what happened. there is no reason we cannot have a 10-minute oral report. i just see that sometimes we wait three times for the report and we have to read the transcript anyhow. whatever is best, so we could put that on the agenda, i think would be a change we should talk about. president marshall: so review and craft something? is that readily agreeable? commissioner hammer: i would be happy to. president marshall: i am

assuming we discussed this with occ? commissioner hammer: there was a meet and confer. president marshall: so we want run into that issue if we tweak it. why don't we get that all of that in order before you bring it back, ok? commissioner hammer: i will work with commissioner mazzucco, and if we have to me, i would add to process. am i would just like it at a signing a commissioner to each and every case, even if there is a hearing officer, just like the regular court world when you have a magistrate judge is still assigned to a regular judge. so the commissioner does not do much work, but there should be someone tasked with knowing what is going on. commissioner hammer: we will put that in the draft as well. the only thing i would suggest,

i know we are ready have in the rules the first meeting of the month we get the full reading of all the cases on the docket. i think it would be helpful to us, one of the numbers that came out i think the last count, there were 10 officers on light duty because of discipline charges pending. that is far down, but that is costing the city a lot of money and gives less people for the chief to deploy on the street. i think if lieutenant bradley could help us prioritize that it, so they can get back on the street or which it -- or whatever should happen with them. perhaps lieutenant riley can report back on the first meeting in august. president marshall: all right, anything else? all right, we will take public comment on the item 4 a * b. none. we will move to item no. 5. >> item number five, mr.

president, is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. closed session is described under items 7a, b, and c. 7a is pursuant to government code 54957 administrative code 67.10, personal exception, discussion and possible action to adopt findings of fact supporting the commission's decision given march 17, 2010 in case number kmo d08-013 and jwf c08-014. the second item is pursuant to government code 54957 and 67.10, discussion only conference with legal counsel anticipated

litigation. the city as defendant, number of potential cases being one. president marshall: i don't think we're going to need item 7c. we will just plan to go into closed session on a and b. so we move to item no. 6. >> item six is to vote on whether to hold closed session. vice president mazzucco: so moved. commissioner hammer: second. president marshall: without objection, so ordered. we will move in to closed section here. >> ladies and german, the commission will be retiring into closed session at 6:15 p.m. on items 7 and b on the agenda. it president marshall: [6:52]

>> commissioner, it is 6:52 p.m. and the police commission is returning from item's 7-a and 7-b. commissioners mazzucco and hammer are here. and with permission, we could mope move to heam 8. vice president mazzucco: item 8. >> item 8 is vote to elect whether to delose any or all discussion held in closed session. >> item 9. >> item 9 is adjournment. vice president mazzucco: and the meeting is adjourned. secretary reilly: and the meeting is adjourned at 6:52

p.m.

supervisor maxwell: welcome to land use. i am chair supervisor maxwell, and i am joined by a member, supervisor chiu. i want to thank the folks from channel 26 for bringing us live. madam clerk, you have some announcements. >> please make sure to turn of cellular phones and pagers. completed speaker carts and copies of documents to become pleaded as part of the file -- completed as part of the file should be submitted. supervisor maxwell: thank you. will you read items one, two, and three together please? >> item 1, ordinance accepting

irrevocable offers up public infrastructure improvements associated with mission bay north lot n1. item two, ordinance dedicating a portion of state trust parcel 54 open space public use, naming the new park, and spark. item three, ordinance dedicating a portion of the trust partial 5 mission bay south part for open space public use and naming the new park bayfront park. supervisor maxwell: thank you. staff? >> good morning. and with the department of public works. we have the three ordinances' related to three pieces of land within the mission bay development area -- mission bay north and mission bay south. put something up for you. excuse me, there is an image. the public right of way our

round n1, which is at the intersection of third, townsend, fourth, and king streets, as depicted in this photograph. -- the public right of way around n1. we're talking about, generally use infrastructure, public right of way in essence. p17 shown here, which is a park in mission bay south. p18, just north of it, which is this part area. the two parks and actually, a little over 1 acre to future total of 43 -- 41 acres in the mission bay area. in all three cases for these improvements, the director of public works has determined that the projects are complete and ready for acceptance for

intended uses. and the planning department has determined that construction and acceptance of these improvements are consistent with the general plan and also, in all three cases, again, the san francisco redevelopment agency has found these to be in conformity with the mission bay redevelopment plans. if you have questions, we would be happy to answer. supervisor maxwell: thank you very much. why don't we open this up to public comment? seeing none, then public comment -- zero -- oh. all right, then, kelly watts on items two and three. >> avi file [inaudible]

my name is kelly watts. i have done audits for national corporations for close to 20 years. mayor newsom and the board of supervisors have done a lot of great things for san francisco and represented many of item -- many of my ideas. we propose partnering with political benefactors to create and/or alter city parks using toxic materials is not one of them. despite the fact that the attorney general and lieutenant governor are fighting to protect children from their toxicity, the current administration has persisted with allowing such materials to be installed. today's synthetic turf may indeed be popular and being treated as expedient fixes for parks, but we have all seen the historic cost of others as popular fads. for instance, the fiscally efficient and widely used lead- based paints poison for decades, and nothing was thought to be more fiscally efficient than

filling buildings with asbestos. today's fiscal fix is to create public parks with toxic synthetic materials that which only time will write be true environmental impact reports. it is a public records that the san francisco parts commission and the city's management regularly utilize city employees from the san francisco department of the environment to help themselves and knowingly falsely claim that the product that they use does not contain lead or heavy metals. such dishonesty and political shenanigans will undoubtedly have consequences. city field and rbd clearly knows is false and misleading. the board of supervisors and park commission have been told -- and, no, it is not true. the question is if children are going to develop sicknesses from these parts, including the golden gate park, but how many and how soon? it is currently on know how much exposure it will take before children that are in hailing the degrading material in these fields will begin exhibiting symptoms of accumulated lead

poisoning, mercury poisoning, chronic asthma, acute mrsa bacterial infections, cancer, or other medical complications. we request that the row and valid environmental studies and procedures be conducted before materials are selected in the future and that the public be properly and fairly informed of any risks that their use made in detail. thank you. supervisor maxwell: welcome. any further public comment on this item? public comment is closed. colleagues, before us is items one, two, and 3. without objection? so moved. item four. >> item four, ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement with the museum of modern art for property at 676 howard st., fire station number 1, in exchange for 935 folsom st., a replacement fire station. supervisor maxwell: i just

wanted to comment on the -- regarding our speaker's comments. we will be working on those issues. it is ongoing with iraq and parts and so on and so forth, and i think you are right -- it is ongoing with red and park -- rec and park. war right. there is no solid evidence of what you're suggesting, and that is why it continues. -- you are right. but we continue to monitor that. thank you very much. >> i'm from the office of economic and workforce development. we are here to request the committee's consideration of a conditional land disposition an acquisition agreement between the city and san francisco museum of modern art, which will set the stage for the museum to build a new wing, and for the fire department to acquire a new state-of-the-art replacement for fire station number 1. city staff and representatives

have spent the past several months working out what we think is a real win-win for the city and sfmoma. i am going to briefly go over the big picture with you, and john updike from the real-estate department will take you through the key agreement. the big picture is that the sfmoma plans to build a new wing to house the fischer collection. the have already acquired the hill college building and desires to acquire fire station number one, both of which are on howard street, around the corner from the museum. it would demolish both structures and construct a new wing, linking to the back of the existing museum. in a moment, i will have diagrams for you. in return, the museum will build, at no cost to the city whatsoever, a new fire station at 935 folsom st.. as stated in the organs before you and in the agreement, the city has not yet completed

environmental review of these projects. the agreement before you is a conditional agreement, setting out terms for the land transfer, contingent upon a number of independent actions to take place in the future, all of which are at the full discretion of the board of supervisors and other decision-making bodies. these include the completion of the ceqa process and certification of an eir, action to rezone the existing fire station property and the right of way on the street behind it, as well as to rezone the property for the new fire station. action to vacate the right away, approval of the actual new museum building, and approval of the new fire station. as i mentioned earlier, we think this agreement is a win-win for the city and for moma. it allows the moma to build a new wing to house the world- renowned fischer collection and

provides for the fire department and the fire station facility, which is superior in its physical layout and location to the existing fire station at no additional cost to the city. before john goes over with you the agreement, i just want to give you a sense of the overall big picture schedule for this project. we are expecting certification of the eir and project approvals in fall of two dozen 11. completion of the new fire station ready for use, fall of 2012. and completion of the new museum wing, summer 2015. again, all contingent on the approvals that i already mentioned. at this point, i will hand it over to john. i just want to say to you, after john is finished with his brief presentation, we have representatives of numerous city departments and of the sfmoma key and answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. assistant director of real estate, good afternoon.

the action that we are requesting today is adoption of an ordinance, which would approve a conditional land disposition an acquisition agreement between the city and the san francisco museum of modern art and its affiliates. exempting the fire station to be billed by the museum from competitive bid requirements. the agreement has the following key provisions -- i have up here a map of the city-owned property. the city will transfer to the museum fire station one at 676 howard st., and that is shown in pink on the map. as well as a remainder stub of hyde street, and that is shown in yellow on the map. these have been appraised together, a combined value of $2,040,000. some photographs of the property, just to familiarize yourself with that site, are here.

that was an independent appraisal completed recently. in return, the museum has purchased a parcel at 935 folsom st. shown here between fifth and sixth. the museum would allocate 9000 square feet of this parcel for a new fire station as well as 1800 square feet as a parking easement. those two assets have been appraised combined at a value of $2,350,000. in other words, that is in favor of the city. the museum would then build a new fire station for the city at 935 folsom. that is an estimated cost of over $6 million. and then transfer this completed parcel and station in operating condition to the city. the new station at 935 folsom would serve the needs of the fire department much better than where we are currently located.

it would provide much more space than currently provided, and it is a location which was in the search zone provided to staff and the museum associates early on by the fire department. the museum will be directed by the department of public works and the fire department staff on all the specifications necessary for the fire station to meet all the requirements that we have as a public facility. though the construction of a new fire station would be exempt from competitive bidding, it is important to note that it would be subject to requirements related to prevailing wage, resourced efficient building, equal benefits, and first source hiring. we do not think it can be emphasized enough relative to the timing of this and the fact that the proposed agreement before you really establishes a framework for this real estate

transaction between the city and sfmoma. does not commit the board or any other city decisionmaker to approving entitlements for the proposed sfmoma expansion project, the vacation of hunt street, where the proposed new fire station project. the land use and project entitlement approvals will come from the board of supervisors, the planning commission, and any other required city decision makers after completion of the internal review under the california environmental quality act. because these projects have not yet completed environmental review, the city expressly retains all of its regulatory discretion to approve or reject these projects. approve alternatives to the project, or adopt mitigation measures. this reservation of discretion is discussed in considerable detail in the proposed agreement attached to your materials. once the city has completed the environmental review and approve

the necessary project in thailand, the agreement before you comes to life and garments the terms of the real estate transaction, which the city and sfmoma would then finalize. again, we have representatives from fire, dpw, other jurisdictions, as well as the sfmoma team to answer any questions you may have. supervisor maxwell: all right, then, why don't we hear from the fire department? >> good afternoon. do you have specific questions for me? supervisor maxwell: do you have a presentation or something that you have prepared? >> no, i do not. supervisor maxwell: supervisor,

do you have questions for the fire department? supervisor chiu: i do have a question related to the previous speaker brown the lack of competitive bidding in this project. let me say that i have sat down of various product -- various parties on this project. i want to find various city officials as well as the fisher family for coming up with what i think is a wonderfully unique arrangement to get done what we all want to accomplish here, injuring the neighborhood pose a safety related to the need for fire safety, but obviously, bringing to the city an amazing collection. the piece of this that was not made as clear to me when we were going to this before was the aspect of the lack of competitive bidding. i know that there was some mention before about the desire or intention to rely on for stores and potentially city built, but could you talk about how we would ensure that we do have local hiring and the various types of first source

city built kind of programs are incorporated into what we're doing to make sure this will actually be a local project? >> sure, i can try to address that. with respect to competitive bidding, is - standing the competitive bidding is put into place when public money is being spent on a project to protect the taxpayers and make sure they get a good deal for the money. in this case, moma is obligated under the agreement to build the station regardless of what the cost is to them, so it made sense to ask you to exempt the project from competitive bidding. with respect to the local hiring or the lbe, it is our belief that because public money is not being invested in a project, it is not subject to the lbe ordinance, although as john said, is subject to first source and all the other things that he mentioned. supervisor chiu: if i had heard the previous speaker correctly, it is the intent of the project sponsor to include those

aspects. is that right? >> by the project sponsor, you mean the sfmoma with regard to the new fire station? supervisor chiu: right, i thought that in past presentations, i would heard that that would be part of it. >> it is the intent that it is mentioned in the agreement. i'm sorry, i'm just looking for my notes for the series of things -- oh, yes. subject to the city hosted prevailing wage resourced- efficient building, equal benefits, and first source hiring provisions. supervisor chiu: i'm sorry, which section are looking at? >> let me ask the deputy city attorney. let us know what section that is in. >> i'm not sure. it is in the contract itself. there is a provision, section 11.21 of the agreement, does prov