>> good evening. acting director of real estate, john updike. a pleasure to be here before you this evening. with respect to background on the timing of why this item is coming to you now, previously come in the capital plan, and unfunded element has been in that plan since its inception regarding restoration of this property. a fairly high place holder number, somewhere north of $20 million was estimated to rehabilitate the building to provide either a police or other public safety use on the property. that option seemed to be fiscally not feasible. we processed the declaration of surplus in a sale of the fire.

-- fire station on tennessee on the same block which was a fairly successful effort of moving back into private hands for redevelopment. what is before you today is a bit of a unique attempt to in steps offer the property first perhaps for the lease. we have been approached by communities serving nonprofit organizations that have an interest in this property. as the chief put in a letter to me, this property does have a unique opportunity to serve the community, respect its former use, perhaps create some more bridges between law enforcement and those in need, and we would like to explore that opportunity, not necessarily as a revenue opportunity but more so putting the property out as a

request for proposal to the nonprofit community. what kind of uses might be put to the building, and what we're looking at is simply taking what is currently a liability for the city by owning this building, a difficult building to manage because it is not used, deflecting that risk and expense of maintaining a building not in current use for police use, and offering it under that scenario, which would require the board of supervisors approval. we would do this process, this request for proposal to the nonprofit community in -- with your staff. this is ball long lines of what we have been talking about. if that fails to produce a reasonable or viable proposal, we are seeking today the declaration of surplus to allow the potential of sale of the property. i am not sure that is

necessarily a viable alternative. the building does have a historic element to it. cost to rehabilitate the property could be difficult. that is something that could be explored as a second step. i believe we would be in a position to return to you for further information on that. and seek additional board authority if we were to take that step. this is an incremental process we would see ahead but in order to take that first step of offering the property for lease, it needs to be declared surplus by the commission overseeing the property with jurisdiction. we would transfer that to the department of real estate to manage that request for proposal process and if we have a successful venture that springs forward from that, taking it to the board of supervisors for their review and approval. hopefully that context is somewhat helpful. president mazzucco: thank you. if you want to add anything? >> the nonprofits to which john

is speaking have talked about keeping the historical perspective of the building intact and then working on the inside to make it something that would be for at risk kids or something of that nature, and correct me if i am wrong, but at the cost of the lease, they would take care of the mitigation and and obviously at some point in time depending on how successful the nonprofit venture might be, the city would keep the property, but it will have been mitigated and will have been productive and would still go towards violence reduction and helping at risk kids, if that is something that can be pulled off. i think that would be a huge positive for the space right now that has been a blight in the neighborhood where a could be adding value. president mazzucco: thank you. commissioner term an.

commissioner terman: have there been actual interest today to buy specific nonprofits? >> yes. commissioner terman: the nonprofit community has approached us and we have had interest from for-profit ventures. we would like to explore this non-profit opportunity first. president mazzucco: commissioner kingsley. commissioner kingsley: thank you both for your reports and your input, chief. could either or all of you explain a bit what happens financially? this is considered a building or an asset to of the police department. if -- but yet, the department of

real-estate could take it over and generally what belongs to the the police -- what belongs to the police to prevent belongs to the city. my question is rooted in the flow of money. whether it be rental, it sounds like, the idea of a nonprofit that would help in violence prevention, that is a terrific idea and there is a great deal of appeal to it. it sounds like if that were the case, in terms of the cost of upkeep, mitigating the expense of upkeep, that would be basically the best we could expect, almost, or close to it in terms of the financial aspect of the transaction. if it were leased to a profit or four -- nonprofit organization, we could expect a sale. there would be the sales proceeds and what could be

received for that. at the heart of this is, if it is considered an asset of the police department, what could the police department look forward to in terms of financial benefit from leasing this property out or selling it? when we have the academy classes we need to put on and all sorts of things and occ as part of that budget umbrella. we have heard their needs this evening. how does that work in the city in terms of an asset? >> that is a great question. i get confused as to how that works i can understand the genesis of the question. take this again incrementally. with the lease proposal, i believe your statement is correct. perhaps the best we can hope for is to mitigate our expenses to maintain this building and

secure a solid operator, a positive community use, and have no expense to the police department or any other department of the general fund of the city. if there is some opportunity for revenue flow or some participation downstream, let's say it is a long-term lease and things become wildly successful and there is some element that could produce a fiscal return, what we often do, the department of real estate is a place holder of jurisdiction. the police department would then through a state receive revenues. we ofte-- to real estate receive revenues. the jurisdiction move facilitates leasing or sales. think of this as an interim step. we will often put that in an mou so there is a clear understanding between real estate and the police department if there are funds, this is how

we would handle that matter. secondarily, should this non- profit venture not pan out, and we agree collectively to move forward with a sale, as part of the board of supervisors approval of the sale, the board would also need to adopt an ordinance which allows the funds to flow to the home department. in this case, the police department. i will use that example of the fire department sale. if there is a surplus property ordinance which currently states that any sales of surplus property, the proceeds need to go to affordable housing first unless the board of supervisors directed otherwise. we would work jointly with the chief to formulate a communication to the board seeking those funds not in this case going to affordable housing, but returned to the home department. it is a board decision at the end of the day. president mazzucco: there was an

excellent question. the public may say the commission had this in front of them, we voted to turn it over to the real estate department rian hob i have seen this done before. the old central station. -- we voted to turn over to the real-estate department. i have seen this done before. it went to a nonprofit. the city sold it. it is an art studio and a private residence. talk about and read. is there a possibility for this? also the old northern station, what is the current status of that station and the old mission station in the district -- station in the mission district? i see those as the examples. can the police department maintain control through this mou to guarantee that it goes toward the use of a nonprofit

that is related to the police department, preventing crime? community average. how much control with the use if we make this vote tonight and turn it over to you? >> brick questions. real-estate is happy to draft and work with the chief on an mou. you can condition your approval if you feel comfortable doing so. on an mou which i-- perhaps a comes back to the commission for final approval. -- it comes back to the commission for final approval. we can take this incrementally. simply addresses our first step of offering the property for lease and being clear what that is and what would be acceptable to the police department. go out to the community, and see what we get. if that pans out, terrific and we have a clear understanding. before we take next steps on disposal, we look at a different

document that addresses that and seek board of supervisors input. the chief and i are not empowered to trump and existing ordinance which tells us where funds moscow and we need to seek that policy decision from the board. -- where funds must go and we need to seek that policy decision from the board. >> you were accurate in those other stations are no better shape than the old bayview station. i think the point does need to be made. there are -- i do not know what the amount of dollars in mitigation that is needed at the former mission station or the l street near the station. we are talking about millions of dollars in mitigation. it fell into disrepair at the -- earthquake and we worked at it as a red tag building.

there is some buildings. right now, it is an asset in that it is a piece of ground in san francisco. it is an asset that we will never have the wherewithal to rehabilitate because of the cost. and so to make something productive of it and to have a nonprofit that can go out and find the dollars to do that mitigation, if it could happen, seems to me to be the best way to go, to add value back to the bayview. >> i have seen the stations and they are a blight. it looks terrible when you drive by. the neighborhood has changed incredibly. there is condos and lofts and things are being billed -- built. we hear about these incremental changes. they have gone through that transition. and sold -- and it is a

multimillion-dollar property. i have family history with some of these stations. it is sad when you drive by and see that. i would love to see the station be part of the community. >> [unintelligible] are they different? can i say landlord? with the school district. again when you have an organization well -- we are looking for space like that. if you can find one that has a similar interest. it works well for the school district. it is a win-win for nonprofits like that. i know the need for

organizations like ours. i am not happy to see something like this happen. hopefully all the details will be worked out. for that to happen and -- we have been out for 15 years. maybe something like that can work. >> it is an action item. i love the idea of getting this to a nonprofit. how do we make sure that if it does not go to a nonprofit it does not just get sold to the highest bidder for development? >> one of us can amend the resolution. >> we need more information. we need to consider our details

with this. i feel for one protective of any asset that the police department has in terms of its use and there is a great deal of appeal for the nonprofit. at the same time, i think we need to weigh financially what happens and if it does down the line sell for a lot of money because it has been improved over the years, i would like to see the department to enjoy that, if it comes to that. i really want to see us retain a lot of control around us throughout so the department can benefit. >> i would be prepared if everyone else was to amend this resolution and specify in the

only result clause that the police commission declares the -- recommends the director of real estate to sell or transfer the property in accordance with current regulations to it and nonprofit. we can retain the control of the need to sell or transfer it to a private entity, they would have to come back to us. is that possible? commissioner terman: a like that. >-- i like that. >> it needs to be sold to a non- profit? commissioner chan: the director of real-estate is to sell -- i was going to tag on a non profit on their so it specified who it is sold or transferred to. we could restrict sales. i am fine with it being leased or transfer to a nonprofit.

the chief makes an important point. it could be added value to the neighborhood, especially a place for at risk youth. that seems like a worthy use for the building. president mazzucco: i see the city attorney looking at me. manna make a suggestion? we should table this until next week. -- may i make it thia suggestio? this affects the other pieces of real estate and there is nothing in our package that we had to review until this evening when we were given the resolution. the prudent thing in making this decision and i like the amendment. the chief likes it. i feel comfortable with that. it is a caution. i ask this be tabled until next week. we have a conversation with the city attorney and make that amendment through commissioner chan.

we need to get this right. commissioner determine? commissioner terman: could se we see a mou? how long will that take to put together? >> i would be more than happy to have a draft put forward so you could have that as part of your consideration. if we could have additional time, that would be helpful. and perhaps we can make some further refinements to the draft resolution you have, if you could come back to give adequate time to senior staff review. i hate to say that you are right. we will schedule -- i want to get this right. it is a great idea. i want to make sure that we are doing it absolutely by the letter of the law.

we are doing it correctly and we benefit the community by this decision. any public comment regarding this? >> good evening. i have been working with john updike and amy brown for nine years on this building. i live directly behind it. in the for-profit component. the challenges of this building, it was red-tagged in the earthquake. california state law requires nonprofits to build at 150% of standards which creates the $20 million price tag. for profit has to do scattered earthquake repairs. i have spent nine years to get to today. my goal is to acquire the building through a lease or sale or joint venture to

generate revenue for the police department. previously was the school district. -- it was the school district. and restore the building. as a member of the booster association and neighborhood and the -- i have been meeting with supervisors for nine years, my goal is to create a business that supports the community and could generate enough money on a yearly basis to put 18 through may -- the police academy. i pay over a million dollars a year in least payments to my landlord. it could be a similar arrangement with the police department. nonprofits by the structure of a nonprofit, why would they want to spend the money to build to retrofit a city building against spending the money to satisfy their non-profit purpose? i would strongly encourage you to take the step that mr. updike is suggesting. move it into the next day so we can find out if there is a non- profit with enough money to do it.

let see if they can. i have gone through five processes with five different nonprofits from the 49ers to other local nonprofits that cannot come up with the money. i have been waiting nine years for them to not come up with the money. i am a for-profit. i will get the money. you'll get a building and revenue faster than going through the slow process of a nonprofit. the last nonprofit was the local bayview community service for giving scholarships to underprivileged children. they came up with a $7 million price tag to retrofit the building. we do not rather spend on scholarships? i would strongly encourage you to table until january. i have binders, i could meet with you and show you a detailed plans of the building and the history. let's take the next step and generate some revenue for the police department. thank you. president mazzucco: next speaker? >> it took 14 years to get rid

of a liability building, i should not be shocked to find that it takes 15 months to get rid of something that should have been gone a long time ago. my second comment was going to be i do not have a dog in this fight but it seems unseemly if not worse, perhaps a conflict for people to talk about their affiliations with nonprofits and tried to steer the party toward nonprofits. as a citizen, it gives me pause about the process where people are touting their credentials as nonprofit people and try to steer it in a direction where it can only go to a nonprofit. that strikes me as unseemly at best. thank you. president mazzucco: any further public comment? hearing no further public comment, i ask this be rescheduled for january if we can. the concerns that were just

raised by public comment, this needs more thought. more analysis. commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: were identified earlier when we were discussing this what we were going to do with the next meeting in terms of revision. i feel like we may not have gotten a clear picture on everything that we want presented in january in order to take a vote at that time. so, one of two things. either next rec or the interim, we come up with that information -- next week or in the interim, we come up with that information or in january, that meeting is not going to be a vote but gets us a step closer so that we can formulate more of the questions that we need to have answered in order to make a decision.

if that makes sense. some of the questions that were coming up, ok, what would be the possible uses if it were sold for profit? another would-be trying to get arms around the size of the property. could there be an attached contingency that a portion be rented out for nonprofit use, even if it were sold for profit? there are so many possibilities, i am not sure unless we are very clear on everything we want to know that we're going to do a vote up or down in the next time we meet on this. so, you know. commissioner chan: i would be interested to see what the city attorney's office and with the director of real estate what is possible and the resolution to put the restriction of a 501c3 nonprofit.

we should be aware what is happening as supervisors but we do not need to go into a certain level of detail, that might be outside our expertise. it might be fine to put some restrictions on it but deciding that we want to talk to someone else to help us with that. president mazzucco: we will schedule this for january and start the analysis. line item #4. >> discussion of possible action and return -- to return disciplinary charges filed against special patrol -- patrol special officer alan byard, to the chiefs level for disposition. president mazzucco: i understand it was a request to return this to the chief for discipline as opposed to having this plan before the commission. -- having this pending before

the commission. they were compliant related allegations. the reason for return is that he is in compliance. >> he is in compliance and after a review of the file we thought this matter might be best resolved at the chief's level and i have had the chance to speak to special officer byard. if the commission brings this to the sheiks level, -- chief's level, we will resolve this and get the case closed out. president mazzucco: any questions? >> i am glad we are able to do this if we choose to do so. president mazzucco: do we need public comment regarding return? any public comment on this before we make the motion?

>> it has been two and a half years since the complaint was lodged by the chief of police. i should not be shocked that my complaints have taken almost a year. second point, he is the best they have got. he is the cream of their crop. intel now, until he was threatened with punishment, he failed to comply with the rules for years and years that he is the best they have. as i said before, if this is how they treat you, imagine how they treat us. regular people who can be arrested by these thugs. if they do not comply with you and you are their boss, imagine how they treat those of us who have no authority whatsoever over them. you could have resolved this problem and you can resolve the problems if you do the wisest course, 66 weeks ago. put them all out of business. they are unconstitutional, they

are scofflaws, they violate the law constantly, and they need to be put out of business. what is taking -- i know what is taking so long. bureaucratic inertia. and a certain card is among some of you to confront -- cowardice to confront. some use their clout to maintain these people breaking the law and they are supposed to be law enforcement assistance. thank you. president mazzucco: any further public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner terman: move that the disciplinary charges be returned to the cheeks level for disposition. president mazzucco: you agree with this? correct? >all in favor? >all in favor? thank you.