>> another question on that. when somebody puts up a piece of property, real estate for sale, they have a broker, typically. is the department of real estate -- this is the critical part. if the sale or lease is not accomplished by the broker, then the owner retains their property. canaway write something into the transfer that says at the end of a period of time that it automatically reverts back to the police department? >> two questions there, one with respect to real estate's roll, we are the brokerage arm internally of the city. we have professional staff to act as the city's

representatives in a transaction whether it is a lease, sale, or purchase of that is our role. you have well characterized that. with regard to the jurisdictional transfer, we could in the resolution that the board of supervisors would seek to put in some sort of clause that would automatically returned the asset if something fails to occur. we could certainly do that. that is not terribly unusual. we have done that in the past. i am not sure what that time line is, i want to be thoughtful about that and consult with colleagues. to get proposals and decide where we stand. i would like to hear that feedback. the second second cousin --

second concern is the resolution. how that would appear to focus the attention and the mandate of the broker in terms of how you go forward with the request for proposal. and i am concerned that is a bit narrow in terms of the response from the community. there may be multiple uses of these two buildings that may be consistent. there are some concerns around the best use of the property in terms of something that is consistent as far as the department's relationship. the location of this property may be in a community where they also have other needs that are pressing and one of the buildings canby allocated to 1

years and perhaps there is some other uses that the community would find that would benefit them as a whole better than if the entire property was for one use. in some of the communities in the city that are in need of a grocery stores and produce, that carry fresh produce. this may be a community that has that kind of need. so i am concerned that our resolution may be too narrow in terms of attracting feedback from the community in terms of what they want for the use of the property. i would like to see that expanded. those are my thoughts. >> what is before you is broad enough it speaks clearly about what we're looking for.

if there is a pretentious -- the user that has something they want to deliver, it is about their messaging and framing of that. that ties it. as the chief put in his letter to me some months ago. to again that relationship with the police department. i was comfortable with this language. it is something that can be an effective tool as we look to secure respondents. >> thank you. commissioner chan: thank you for these changes that reflect some of the things we have made. we talked about language to include 501c3 status for charitable status. where is the police department remains concerned that ultimate uses reflect the tradition of public service, provided to the community and speak to longstanding relationships of the departure with the

neighborhood. i see that clause and i think it is helpful. when you get to the resolve clause that executes this, it is pretty broad in terms of who can -- who we are soliciting from. a process is implemented. it does not really further -- it does not seem like it is -- it connects with the intention or another type of service that furthers the police department's mission and goals. >> the thinking on that, that is a good point. there could be a for-profit institution. that could draw from this and deliver what we're asking for. the thought is not to limit ourselves with only 501cd's o3'r

corporations. let's see what we receive. a nonprofit will be the most responsive. on the other hand we have to recognize this is a building with tremendous physical needs and so there is the fiscal capacity issue that might speak to it, maybe a partnership between a for-profit and not- for-profit. that has been successfully put together. we want to preclude that opportunity. that is why we have before you what you have. >> what are the guarantees we have if any of that when this process happens it will not end up with a tenant that does not meet the goals of the whereas clause, number nine? how do we know this will further

this goal? >> that is somewhat up to this body. if you would like to mandate a return, i am happy to do that. ultimately it is the board of supervisors to make the decision as to whether accept or reject a leasing proposal. i would ultimately defer to them but certainly if there is an input step, we need to add, i am happy to do that. commissioner chan: i would like to suggest that input step. i do not want to narrow it in case there is something creative like a partnership. i want to respond to the idea of keeping it somewhat flexible. i want to make sure it furthers the department's goals. this is a really important piece of property. i would like to suggest we add that in there. commissioner terman: thank you. my comment is along the same lines.

i do not think it is narrow. i think it is too broad. as we've stated. in accordance with politic -- local state and -- requirements, that is fine. we would hope that anything that we do is within the applicable state and local requirements but at the same time, i think you are talking about you want to keep it flexible. this is a little bit too flexible. is it possible we could insert some of the language you have used here tonight, partnerships, for-profit businesses, businesses that meet the goal, the whereas clause number 9,. . the board its to know what we're thinking when we send this to

them. we're thinking we want to preserve and have used in line with what the police commission -- with the police department, its mission and to that extent, let's be broad and let's be flexible but let's be narrow enough to include exactly what we're talking about in the resolved portion. they know exactly what we want. even if they reject it, i want the record that is what we want. commissioner kingsley: again, hello? i think the comments of commissioners chan and terman are right on and to piggybakc whaack what commissioner terman said. to think in terms of partnerships and to explicitly states that because it is about attracting money to that

community. as well as to have a nonprofit there that would further some community development goals. a question regarding the tenants and the payment of rent. where does that money go? does that come back to the police department or does that go to city funds, city coffers? >> if there is a fiscal return and i would doubt that would be rather immediate because again, this requires an investment. it would be to the general fund. indirectly, that benefits all the city family but it would not be directly to the police department. commissioner kingsley: if this were to be sold, with this go to the police department or the general fund? >> to the general fund.

commissioner kingsley: thank you. >> i'm hearing the commission is concerned about turning the property over. not sure what is going to happen for it -- to it. is it possible to you -- for you as the real estate agent to go out and solicit these leases and all this information and want to have one that is chosen, come back to the commission for agreement to relinquish the property back to the city? is that a possibility? i do not want to do anything illegal. last time we heard from either builders who want to get their hands on it and put more condominiums out there. we would like to see that building. a lot of folks have worked there. is it possible to delay the transfer until we determine what they use is going to be? >> i think it is possible.

the challenge is we would suggest going to the board of supervisors to get their approval to issue a request for proposals. i would think it would take a cue from this commission as to whether their supporters or not supportive of taking that step. i think we're trying to find a way here to get your voice heard as this goes to the board and then out to the committee. -- community. commissioner kingsley: can we build into this resolution a request that the transaction be structured in such a way there be a satisfactory apportionment of any money that result from between the department and the general fund? can we negotiate that?

>> i am sure director updike can answer that but this is a city asset and the board will decide in conjunction with the mayor how to allocate revenue that comes from it. >commissioner kingsley: i was under the impression this was a police department asset. i understand. >> this is currently under authority of the police department. try to have it transferred there for him to facilitate some transaction around the property. >> is the same kind of thing with the budget as a whole. the city's budget but the police department has its budget and so one of the assets that -- in the police department's budget is this property and therefore if there is some way we can say ok, one of our assets, we want to be included as a line item in our budget.

to try to get some money. out of this for our department. >> we would not be the only commission to request the funds that flow from an asset. you have under your control. that is a reasonable request. the decision matrix has been well explained here. if it comes down to whether there is a deficit reduction target for that and the board of supervisors, budget and finance would make that call. i remind you that it is highly unlikely we will see revenue stream from this property any time soon because of the significant investment required up front. >> we can think long-term on this. if we express our wishes we're not going to have any chance for it.

i would urge us to include in the resolution that some of the funds if not all of them come back. the income stream comes back to the department. however that happens to be, whether it is five to 10 years down the line after the property has been brought up to code or whatever that may be. for us to include that in our resolution. >> i would add the positive nature of this is it is a libel -- liability issue and a current expense by the department to manage the property and that is deferred. that is a plus. that is a positive for the chief's budget. it is one less problem to deal with and hopefully it becomes a true asset. >> if you would explain the cost involved in mediating this side, that might be something

the commissioners would like to know. >> certainly. there has been some analysis done on this by the bureau of architecture which looked at two main issues. one was the best this abatement. we have significant hazardous -- asbestos abatement. we have a significant hazar dous presence. and that could be on the order of several hundred thousand dollars on top of a normal improvement projects. the tenant improvements themselves, we're looking at having to convert a police station to a different welcoming use. that could run anywhere from at

a minimum, we're looking at $100 a square foot. perhaps two or three times that depending upon the proposal. we have heard everything from restaurants to, as you have mentioned, condominiums, which is not something we're entertaining here. nonetheless, all those require a significant level of effort. commissioner chan: two suggestions based on what we have discussed. for the further resolve clause of the first clause on the second page, clause 12, that it includes language about furthering clause 9 above. you can added that and say for the results -- to secure tenancy that furthers, however you would like to describe it and spurs renewal of. and for no.

13, the second from their claws on top of the second page. there could be something added that changes. for -- further resolve's the director come to the commission for further discussion. i do not see why we cannot change that and say that -- you would return to the police commission for further discussion should an appropriate tendency of the property be secured prior to its approval or prior to finalization of the process. i think is fine to go ahead and put out the solicitation, see who comes forward and once you decide who makes sense, present that final candidate -- tended to us before it is confirmed. >> that is what i suggested. commissioner chan: exactly. i was trying to implement the

wording. >> we need to send you back to the drawing board. i apologize. if we could put this back on the agenda for the fourth with that language added. >> there are a number of issues, not just that language in the particular resolution. president mazzucco: that is some language that is added. it is -- is it possible for mr. updike to meet with commissioner chan and commissioner kingsley? let's put this over. >> if the commission is in favor of the proposed amendment that commissioner chan raised and its director of dyke and the department do not have concerns about that, you could certainly adopt this resolution with those changes and wrap up this

discussion this evening. >> that is acceptable. i heard some fair amendments here. >> i am fine with that. president mazzucco: if you could read that back then we can go. commissioner chan: i knew this might be asked of me. ok. on the second page, the first one. the 12th clause. it should read further resolve the police commission recommend the director of real-estate implement a solicitation process to secure tenancy of the property that furthers whereas clause no. 9 above. and spurs renewal of the asset in kind -- in accordance with applicable state and local requirements. for the next one under that, second page, second clause.

return to the police commission for further discussion and approval of this matter should inappropriate tendency of the property be secured. prior to final approval. >> is approval or recommendation the more appropriate turterm? >> approval. >> i changed that to recommendation. >> just in case, there is not an appropriate proposed tenancy secured, would you like to still leave in that other resolve? >> that makes sense. additional resolve rather than replacement. president mazzucco: with those in mind, let me open it to public comment and i will take a motion. any public comment regarding line items number three? hearing none, public comment is

put -- is closed. let's take a vote. >> i want to clarify why -- i want to see the changes in writing rather than off the top like this but it does not incorporate i think it is a real necessity to protect an asset of the department. it may be a liability now but once it gets fixed up by whoever is going to fix it up sometime down , there should be an income stream or something from it. i think i would like to see something in this resolution that reflects that to the extent we can give it as much teeth as possible. i would like to see that and i would like to see a limitation around the time period this property is out for request for

proposal and so if it does not happen, if the department wants it back to consider something else with it that we have the ability to do that rather than a one-way transfer. i think we need some time parameters and some built in ability to etheeither get their property back under our control and reconsider what the first round of proposals services and again, the ability to bring in some funds to the department or its budget based on its property. and if i am out voted, that is fine but i wanted to express that that is the reason. i support the general direction that the commissions are going in.

i think it is the right direction. i see more tweaking than just the language that addresses clarification of the resolutions that are here. i would propose we get some further tweaking of this in line with our comments and see it in writing, look at it in writing once again to vote on it. >> in terms of a time line, do you mean you would suggest adding a time limit for the resolve clause come returning to the police commission if an appropriate tenet is not found? are you -- if they are not to found within six months or year, do you have specific language in mind? >> that is the idea. that it come back to us. that the proper rate not just to rest some place else for two

years and nothing happened to it. that it be put out, a request for proposal. the whole process take place and it does not happen, the department decided to do something else with this acid. asset is a bit loaded. as it stands it is a liability. we need to be aggressive and do something so that is not a liability and turn it into an asset for the community and the department. >> with regard to the funding stream having the money come back to us, it seems it is not possible. i will give you an analogy. i wanted to any money i brought in to go to my program area but i was informed that it goes to the general fund of the organization. i have accepted that and it does help the program, regardless. commissioner kingsley: ok.

i hear that but i hear that we're not the only commission that has requested to do that. it has been worked around. there is possibilities there. and i would like to explore that further and at this meeting it may not be appropriate. it may be something that is better discussed and brought back to the commission with mr. updike and myself, commissioner chan, if she chooses. there maybe more to this than in spending -- then spending the entire time at the commission tonight and i would like to get more input from the city attorney and other folks around that particular aspect of it. if our budget is bearing the liability, the flip side should be true, too. i would like to get an expanded vision on that aspect of this.

>> my hope is we could tie this up tonight. let me ask you, would you be willing to withdraw or do you want to vote with the resolution and the three of you get together and bring it back. >> can i ask one question? would it be appropriate or has this been done to have a request that the board allocate some or all of the revenue from the police department. that is a request to the board and it would not be binding on the board. >> it has been requested that if -- the fire commission comes to mind. public health has made a request

similar in nature. they were somewhat unsuccessful. it is a request. it is anticipated. from any commission looking out for the assets of the department they represent. i do not want to give false hope as to the results. president mazzucco: we had a motion and a second. where are we at? >> this is the second time this has been before us. i think -- your concerns are well laid out and perhaps the only reason i would call for this is with the addition of coming to us for final approval before the recommendation, it might be a place where we could provide further input. this is not the last time it will be here before us. commissioner kingsley: what is the urgency around voting tonight? commissioner chan: so we can get this done. president mazzucco: we can get

this done. >> can we restate the motion? vice-president marshall, aye. commissioner dejesus, aye. commissioner chan, aye. commissioner kingsley, no. commissioner determined, -- terman, no. the ayes have it, 4-2. president mazzucco: please call out line item #4. >> public comment on all items pertaining to item 6 below, closed session. including public comment on vote