keep up the great work. to the ubiquitous team members of the virgin, you are everywhere. you guys are in my office, getting photographs, doing treasure hunts. everywhere there is a cable, that -- everywhere there is a cable car, there are divergent people -- there are virgin people. charlotte has been encouraging that. the governor is not so convinced, nor is homeland security. anyway, thank you for being out here. congratulations. we are really proud of the partnership. one final point -- this is about jobs, and when we say jobs, do not just listen to what they just said. it is not 1000 jobs that they

have here in the bay area. it is the multiplier effect. that is the big thing about airline business. for every direct job, they create five indirect jobs. that is why we are doing this. that is why this is a big deal. 500 jobs? ok, but we're talking about 2500 jobs every single year. the cabdriver that gets the benefit, the restaurant door, the folks at the hotel. the entire region is dramatically benefited. governor schwarzenegger, on behalf of your team, this is the first the partnership we had together. this has paid huge dividends and goes to the spirit of the times, the spirit of our state. again, i thank you for your leadership and, richard, again for your wise decision, and, david, again for your wise decision to be here. thank you very much. >> thank you.

if you would move to our right, we will have a representative officially open the gates to toronto for virgin america. 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 provide specific references to efficiency buildings prevailing wages and equal benefits. it does not meet the gates specific references in time to first source hiring, but there is a cover all provision that is in -- that says all applicable laws will be complied with by the museum, and it is our belief that first source hiring would apply. supervisor chiu: ok, we do not

have in our binder a copy of that agreement. it is not in our binder. i would love to get a copy of it. i think that is indeed the case, that will probably address the concerns that i have that i think a number of my colleagues would have. i would love to see that language. >> excuse me, could you hand this to the supervisor? oh, i'm sorry. supervisor maxwell: do you want to look over it? supervisor chiu: yes, let's take public comment, and i may have questions afterward. >> there are two sections that would be applicable. section 11.21, which would be on page 29 of the agreement, and the applicable law section is section 11.8, which is on page 26 of the agreement. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor maxwell: i don't think there are any questions

for you at this time, unless you had something you wanted to add. >> yes, i would like to add something. this proposal is a win-win situation for the citizens of san francisco, moma, san francisco fire department. currently, station one is located third and howard streets. it was built approximately in the 1950's. it was originally supposed to be a temporary location for the station until the location on jesse alley was renovated, but that never happened. since that time, the firefighters have operated out of a station in a highly congested area for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. the majority of their runs are in the tenderloin area. i would anticipate -- excuse me, i would say approximately 75% of the call volume is focused in

the tenderloin and sixth street corridor. relocating to this location would decrease our response time. we would be better able to serve the population that we normally serve. we are really excited about this project. if you find it reasonable and you agreed to approve it, it would be a great situation all the way a round. supervisor maxwell: great, thank you. all right, why don't we open this up to public comment at this time? >> supervisors, san francisco building and construction trades council. i have something of a personal relationship to the museum of modern art, as the many trades member committee a building in

san francisco. i did work on the building, and although i did not work there for long, some of my work is very prominent on the building, particularly on the sky bridge. in fact, the artist in his all over series in "the chronicle" showed in detail some of my work in a view that is not recognizable as the sky bridge unless you actually worked on it, but he showed the particular way in which i had handled my welds on that structure, and it was a nice instance of our reflecting craftsmanship, i think. that is in park what i will argue on behalf of this exchange, and that is that a building like the museum of modern art and its eventual extension offer a real opportunity for us to exhibit that kind of craftsmanship in the trades. they are the kind of building that really allows us to put forward the best of what we do. although supervisor daly noted

last week, it is about the work, it is not all about the work. it is in this instance about the craftsmanship and about an institution that will be a delight to san francisco in years to come. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next. >> good afternoon. director of sfmoma. pleasure to be able to appear before you and to know that you will be considering seriously this really innovative partnership between fire department and the museum. we are celebrating our 70th anniversary this year at the museum. we have 75 years -- our 75th anniversary. we have 75 years of great anniversary -- of cultural and public service. we had 650,000 visitors last year, for a dozen members, 30,000 students, and we employ 240 staff full-time -- 40,000 members. we had an incredibly salutary

benefits advantage for the yerba buena neighborhood, and as we look forward and have a great opportunity with the fischer collection coming, we have the opportunity to again enhance the yerba buena neighborhood, and especially howard street, by this expansion. it will allow us to create a new and livelier aspect on howard street. we will be able to relocate to what you just heard is a much better location for them, provide much better public service, and the arrangement we have made with the family is for the collection, which is one of the great collections anywhere in the world to come to the museum for no less than 100 years, so it is an extraordinary win-win-win, i would say, for the city, and we have taken a great pleasure in the relationships that we develop with the fire department in putting this together, so appreciate your giving this very

serious consideration, and i and my team are happy to answer any questions you may have. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. president of the san francisco fire fighters. i would also like to speak in favor of this resolution, this item before you today. i think it is a great project for the city. i think it helps us with public safety. i think it helps us with our support of the arts in san francisco, and after many years, this station has become old and tired. this was once the busiest firehouse in america, and it has only just recently been passed by station 3 in the tenderloin, which is now the busiest firehouse in america. 30, 40, 50 years of backing a truck and engine in and out about 57 times a day will exert a lot of strain on a facility, and i think it is time to replace this one. as i said before, it is a great partnership, and i hope you

support this project. supervisor maxwell: thank you. anyone else public comment? seeing none, then public comment is -- still open. no, then public comment is closed. thank you. all right, collie, supervisor chiu, have you been -- >> i understand that apparently there was not a reference to ensuring that the first source hiring program would be applicable here. i'm fine, really, going either way on this, but i just wanted to make sure that that would be a commitment. seems like that would be a commitment of the parties to put that in the agreement. if folks would like to put that in, i would suggest that, but i would like to hear from the deputy city attorney. >> in reviewing this, in connection with this one question, there is apparently an inadvertent typographical error