again per the previous amendment, i would like to ask the person on the record to accept or reject the nomination. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank my colleague, supervisor fewer, for that kind nomination. supervisor fewer and i have worked together for over 13 years and i have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you and how much you care about the city. i am going to decline the nomination. i think it is incredibly important that we in san francisco have an election that for the first time is an open race. we have not had an open race for the mayor's office in san francisco for 15 years and i think the voters deserve an opportunity to choose the next mayor in as much of a level playing field as possible. i want to note, there is no such thing as a level playing field in politics in elections anymore.

we talk about a fair and transparent election, the millions of dollars that get spent in these elections really do give a disproportionate voice to the wealthiest among us to determine who our representatives will be. that said, i want to honor what many members of the public have said. you know, and step back from the nomination, but i do want to thank supervisor fewer for that generous nomination. i also, chair, president tang, if i may, wanted to address one nominee that i heard from many members of the public and in fact she was my first choice and i would have really liked to have nominated her today and that is city administrator naomi kelly. she is someone had has served at the helm of the city for decades and is a great public servant. and would have been a perfect fit for the interim mayor role.

for very similar reasons as to why the board in 2010 had shr selected then city administrator ed lee. i know she is close to ed lee and would have carried his principles and policies forward. ed lee is the mayor that the voters have voted for and in many ways it makes sense to honor that by nominating naomi kelly, but i did not want to create a show by nominating her and asking her to come down here. i did ask her and she said she would not be able to accept this position and that the best way she can continue to serve the city is as city administrator. but i did think it was important for members of the public to understand why a formal nomination was not done, because we received many e-mails on behalf of ms. kelly. and i want to thank ms. kelly for her service and it says a lot about your leadership that so many members of the public had asked on this board to nominate you for interim mayor.

>> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, any other nominations that you would like to make? ok. seeing none, then thank you. madame clerk, would you please read the names of the formal nominees who have accepted in the order they were presented to us. >> clerk: supervisor cohen has nominated president breed. supervisor yee has nominated supervisor farrell. >> supervisor tang: so we have two nominees before us. so colleagues, before we proceed on voting, i wanted to share the procedure. so according to our process, the vote on the nominations will be in the order that the nominations were received when the nominees name is called stay aye or no. the first nominee to receive a majority vote of all members will be selected by the committee of the whole and we'll forward it out to the full board of supervisors for appointment as successor mayor.

again, just to kind of very have you and repeat. given we're voting on nominations in the order which they were received, a nominee higher on the list could receive a majority vote before we vote on names lower down the list. once a nominee receives six votes, voting on all other nominations will cease. and then we will reconvene to appoint the nominee as the mayor. with that said, colleagues, any questions? on the procedure? ok. seeing no questions, then madame clerk, please call the roll of the nominees in the order in which they were received. >> for round one, supervisor cohen's nominee. >> i want to be clear -- >> supervisor peskin: this is not like a board president vote, we don't say a name, we vote aye or no. >> individually. for president breed, supervisor cohen's nomination for president

breed. kim no. peskin no. ronen no. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee no. cohen aye. fewer no. >> there are four ayes and five nos with supervisors kim, peskin, ronen, yee and fewer in the dissent. thank you, madame clerk. no nominee has received a majority of the votes. i wanted to ask if we could call a vote on a second round and that would be the second candidate, supervisor farrell. yee nomination of supervisor farrell. kim aye.

peskin aye. ronen aye. safai no. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee aye. cohen no. fewer aye. >> clerk: there are 7 ayes and two nos with safai and cohen in the consent. >> supervisor tang: the selection is for supervisor farrell. i would like to now ask is there -- please, if we could -- ok, colleagues, i would like to ask if there is a motion to amend item 42 to include the name of supervisor farrell. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: moved by peskin, seconded by supervisor yee. colleagues, can we take that

item and motion without objection or do we need a roll call? no roll call, ok, we'll do that without objection. item 42 amended to include the name of supervisor farrell. the committee of the whole is held and closed. colleagues will now reconvene as the board of supervisors. at this point, the committee of the whole has selected supervisor farrell to be the successor mayor. will be now ask for the members to return to chamber. madame clerk, i would ask that we this meeting is back in session. colleagues, earlier we had

reconvened as a full board of supervisors, but i would like to ask for motion to go back to the committee of the whole? supervisor cohen, second by supervisor peskin. we're reconvened as committee of the whole. with that, madame clerk, i would like to actually ask colleagues if we can rescind the vote on supervisor farrell's nomination? >> second. a motion would be in order. >> i'll make a motion to rescind. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you can colleagues, i think i was caught off guard as many of us were, so i would like to recast my vote. with that, madame clerk. >> just to be clear, presiding officer, this is a vote on the

motion made by supervisor yee and yay or nay motion. >> supervisor tang: correct. >> so a vote in the affirmative would be in favor of appointing mark farrell to be the interim mayor, that is correct? >> supervisor tang: yes, that is correct to my understanding unless madame clerk states otherwise. >> that is the selection by the committee of the whole and recommended to the board. >> so we're still in the committee of the whole? >> we just took a motion to reconvene as committee of the whole? madame clerk, please call roll. yee's nomination of supervisor farrell, kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai no. sheehy aye.

tang no. yee aye. cohen no. fewer aye. >> clerk: there is six ayes and three nos with supervisor safai, tang and cohen in the dissent. >> supervisor tang: thank you, madame clerk, the outcome has not changed. supervisor farrell has still been nominated as the successor mayor. colleagues, actually madame clerk, ask if we have to go back to item 42 to amend supervisor farrell's name >> clerk: we should. >> supervisor tang: moved by peskin, seconded by yee. item 42 will include farrell's name as successor mayor. without objection, item -- roll, call please. on the motion to amend item 42 to add the name as successor

mayor, supervisor mark farrell, supervisor kim? kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang no. yee aye. cohen no. fewer aye. >> there are 7 ayes and two nos. >> supervisor tang: item 42 is amend and passed with supervisor farrell's name as successor mayor. now, colleagues i'd like to welcome back our president london breed. i'm sorry, i apologize, first i see if -- we will now reconvene as the full board of supervisors. welcome back, president breed.

>> acting mayor breed: thank you. so we are -- we have a couple of more items to -- a couple more things to take care of. and so madame clerk? >> clerk: madame president, the committee of the whole has selected supervisor mark farrell to be the successor mayor and has amended item 42 to amend supervisor farrell's name to the item. if you are rejoining the conversation, as we spoke of you would withdraw your nomination. >> but we were pulled out of the committee of the whole and i didn't vote on that item and we're no longer in the committee of the whole. >> no, that's correct, but for you to rejoin the conversation, you have to withdraw your nomination to participate in the process. >> the item is to approve item 42 as amended.

>> acting mayor breed: it was my understanding that you all just did that. >> the committee of the whole amended item 42, recommended that to the board. >> acting mayor breed: ok got it. got it, thank you. so now we're going to approve item number 42. >> clerk: we will consider 42. >> acting mayor breed: at this time, i withdraw my name from consideration and i will be voting no on item number 42. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: item 42 as amended, kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. tang aye. yee aye. breed no. cohen no. fewer. there are eight ayes and two nos

with breed and cohen in the consent. >> acting mayor breed: the motion is approved. please stand by.

>> madam clerk, please call the first -- i mean -- let's see, the mission rock -- >> we're going to continue them. why don't we call both items and then we'll take public comment for them both and then do the continuance. >> 35-37, sitting as a committee of the whole for a public

hearing on the project area one mission rock and subproject areas 1-1 through 1-13. infrastructure district number two financing and items 36 and 37 the ordinance for the project area and 37 is the resolution to approve the issuance of bonds and 38 and 39 is the board of supervisors for a public hearing to consider an ordinance approving amendments to the development plan to remove a parcel known as p-20 and item 39 is ordinance to approve amendments to the mission bay plan. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you as president breed mentioned, i'm asking the board to continue the items to tuesday february 13th to hear the items

then. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to continue. is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. any public comment specifically on the continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk on the continuous, please call the roll. >> on the continuance of items 35-39 supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> those items are continued to -- what date is that madam clerk?

>> february 13th, 2018. without objection. all right. that brings us to the end of the agenda. can you please read the end? >> today's meeting will be adjourned in follow -- in honor of the following individuals, on behalf of supervisor aaron peskin for the late mr. peter overmier. mr. tang qualm sang and from supervisor tang charles alexander and miss lease an m coleman. >> any other business for today? >> that concludes the business for today. thank you. ♪ >> we had adjourned. up early to

watch this, we thank you. we know that this will be played at subsequent times for others to be able to see what we are doing here. okay. also, the president is going to join us. she's the -- a commissioner of this committee. >> this is to address the infrastructure and transportation and that do not appear on the agenda.

in addition to public comment, public comment will be held on each item on the agenda. >> there northeast public comment. >> i'm no. 3, consent agenda. all matters listed here under a constituted consent agenda are considered to be routine by the committee and will be acted on by a single vote of the committee. there will be no separate vote unless the member of the committee suggests and it will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. item 3a, approving the minutes of the meeting. >> i move for the approval. >> i second the motion. >> item no. 4, environmental program support. >> thank you, chair richardson,

director and president tsen. this item will go to the board as an action item. i wanted to have a conversation here before taking it there because we kind of have two different paths going forward ahead of us. we have a contract with lang engineering environmental to provide environmental conservation services to tida to monitor the navy's environmental program, and we brought them on in 2013. this is a selection process that actually had been contacted before i arrived to tida. they replaced amec engineering and infrastructure. the contract was original term

of three years with two one-year optional extensions. a contract is scheduled to expire at the end of this fiscal year. i wanted to bring it to the board to discuss whether to issue a new rfq for the remainder of the navy's environmental work or to modify the existing contract through the projected remaining four years of the work. bringing in now for discussion and board action because if we're going to issue a new rfq, we need to do so propermptly. so they do attempt the navy's base closure meetings. we attend the monthly meetings between the navy and the state regulators. it's also attended typically on

the phone by sfpuc and other city agencies that do work on the island. they review and comment and advise tida on the navy's proposed work plans and other documents for the environmental program. they've also been invaluable in 20 2014. 2015, we had a lot of meetings to discuss the navy's environmental program. they assisted in both planning for those meetings and presenting materials, as well as in working with city agencies, particularly sfpuc to help establish standard work practices on the island where the navy has either not

completed their environmental work or where they have completed their work but they are land use controls. the land use controls we have on the island are primarily related to hydrocarbons in ground water where they've been remediated to such an extent that there's no longer a risk to off-gassing or other associated concerns, but they haven't been able to get 100% of the material out of the soil. and those are really standard ppe, personal protective equipment, criteria that are required in some of those circumstances. the environmental consultant has also been preparing a site management plan for tida, which is basically our program

maintenance for doing annual and five-year reviews of ground water and other environmental conditions. those are eventually requirements which may sunset as long as we can send you to see that there's no rebound in ground water samples or soil-gas monitoring. also, there are physical repairs like the repair of the former skeet shooting area in clipper cove where they armored the bottom of the cove, and that has to be resurveyed every five or ten years along with a survey of the bottom of the cove. they also assist us in preparing reports and supplemental technical information. in terms of the overall status of the program, we had our

presentation last november's board meeting by the name of clark from the navy, but kind of the guiding document that's updated annually by the navy is their site management plan and the 2017 version of the site management plan anticipates the closure of the last site, site 12, in 2021. so we've got about four more years of work to do through the final transfer. this map shows the open sites that the navy has. however, the majority of the work or the work has been completed on the majority of these sites. so the first group of sites, 30, 31, 30 north, 30 south, the has been issued and -- the foist has been issued and there should be

a final fost issued within a week or two. also, the developer, tidc has been preparing for this so we can move forward early next month. in site 24, this was a former dry cleaning facility. the navy has completed their field work, which is a biological process of the chemicals and soil gas and ground water results from the completion of that biological process, which we anticipate will happen before the end of this year. we should be able to transfer site 24 early next year. and then site 6 and 32 are areas where the navy has completed their work, but they anticipate

or have requested to continue to hold that property until they have completed their work in site 12 because it's both a logistical lay-down area and a means of removing soil from site 12 without driving through the residential area. so they've requested to delay those transfers until the end of 2020 when the bulk of field work in site 12 should be complete. and site 2 is just waste water transportation plant. that site doesn't have any ongoing work, but the schedule of that is tied to our schedule for developing new waste water plant rather than the navy's remediation efforts. so, again, in site 6 and 32, we'll need to do a finding of suitability to transfer prior to

those properties transferring, but not a lot of technical work going on. it's really within site 12 where the bulk of the navy's efforts will continue to be for the next several years. and an area where retaining the experience, knowledge could be quite beneficial to us. so in site 12, there are both circla, which are the chemical clean-up projects that are ongoing, as well as radiological investigation, which covers the entirety of site 12. on this flowchart from the site management plan, it came out a little fuzzy, but the areas in green are the scopes of work that the navy has completed on the right-hand side underneath

the yellow header is the continuation of their chemical clean-up. and then on the left-hand side is their clean-up of radiologically impacted areas, particularly the swedas, the solid waste disposal areas. and then in the center of the page is the radiological work plan. so we've discussed that the bulk of the radiological materials in site 12 were believed to have been disposed of in the solid waste disposal areas and then through the process of grading prior to the consideration of the housing, few items were moved into other areas. so this process in the middle is the process the navy will have

to go through to develop a work plan record of decision to gain state concurrents that they have satisfactorily explored outside the solid waste disposal areas. in terms of the navy's schedule as embodied in the site management plan, the continued chemical clean-up outside of the swda areas is going to mobilize this year, in the spring, and run for 14 months to complete into the spring of 2016. the feasibility study for the areas outside of the swdas is expected to be issued before the end of this year with the goal of achieving a record of decision in 2019. that will entail a lot of back

and forth with particularly the california department of public health which has oversight of the navy's radiological programs. that record of decision will determine the nature and extent of the additional radiological field work that is required to close out site 12. and then the final solid waste disposal area, the bulk of expense that the navy will have as well as physical excavation is the solid waste disposal at west side, which is on the right-hand side of the photograph of site 12 there. that work is anticipated to remobilize at the end of this calendar year and continue into 2020. so the recommendation that i propose to take to the board next month would be to extend

the lang contracts through 2022 rather than issuing a new rfp. and that continuity will be important in updating and maintaining our site management plan as additional remediation sites are closed and transferred to us. but, also, in reviewing and commenting on the navy's circla documents and site plan for site 12 -- work plan for site 12, there's been a lot of work with the department of public health over the last four years and the navy, and lang has been at the table for the parties with those communications. as we work forward to ensure that our interests in making sure that site 12 is cleaned up, i think it's important for us to reta retain langan until that period, but i welcome conversation.

>> thank you very much for that assessment. questions and comments by commissioners? >> i would certainly agree with your recommendation. i think that the overview of what we've done with the environmental program shows how much progress has been done in these past few years, and we'll, finally, after all these years, come to the final phase of remediation for treasure island. it's so important, i think, for there to be continuity, particularly because it's a very complicated program, and it's a very critical point as we come to these final remediation and the transfer of those properties so i would agree with your

recommendation. i think our top priority is about public health and public safety. and there cannot be any drop with that oversight. so i would certainly concur with your recommendation. >> i would like to add some comment. you know, i think there are merits to extending the contract. given all the arguments you laid out, familiarity of these sites in question and the historical knowledge is definitely something that we need to take into consideration. so the question that i have is that by retaining this contract, are we gaining time to expedite

the transfer? i'm looking at your date here, that site 12, in particular, you're looking at 2019. so that will boost that calendar. >> this won't necessary cause the navy's schedule to be accelerated, but i think as we work with the navy and the department of public health on the work plan for site 12 for city is so secure free release for the area in site 12. we have agreements with the navy to guard against or to protect our interests in the event that the navy either is unable to or

elects not to pursue the work sufficient to secure a free release from california department of public health. and under the edcoma, we're not required to take any land from the navy that does not have free release. so essentially, failure to achieve that would be a reopener of the conveyance agreement with the navy. secondarily, the edcoma contains provisions that if they're not able to accrue free release of site 12 since a portion of the residential area is intended to be constructed in a portion of site 12, that we could actually reconfigure the program to

relocate housing that would otherwise have been located within site 12 to the area on the east side of the island that's currently proposed to be sports fields. that would trigger -- there would be some additional supplemental environmental work. under the edcoma, is navy would be required to compensate tida for those costs. however, that would be a significant impact to the city. so what our interests are, are ensuring the navy take the measures that are sufficient to gain free release from the state and to clean up site 12. so i think that's not so much that we're looking to accelerate

the schedule, but we're intending to ensure that we achieve certain outcomes, and the failure to achieve those outcomes would have a significant delay on the development side of things. so it's really about ensuring that the navy adheres to the schedule that they've set forward and achieves the outcomes they've committed to in the edcoma. >> so i presume you will calendar this before the general board for the discussion and approval in the next couple of weeks? >> yeah. i plan to have this on the february agenda. >> okay. are there any public comment? seeing none. thank you. >> item no. 5, the pageant of the pacific murals. >> there's been a lot of discussion about the murals.

in public comment, they're certainly well known and well regarded. peter somerdale on our staff managers our consultant contract for the storage and preservation of the murals as well as being a liaison with entities that have requested to borrow the murals in the past. so he has a great deal of history on the murals, and i thought it would be good to present it here, not only for the members of the committee but now that we're being recorded, this will be a resource that people can access online to see this discussion of the murals. so with that, i will turn it over to peter somerville.

>> give me one second here.

all right. sorry about that. for the record, peter somerville, here to provide you with an overview, like bob said, of the history of the cover murals. to be quick, about a artist

himself. he was a noted mexican painter. illustrator of the mid- to 20th century. enjoyed early success in america doing car rickures in the new yorker. he continued through the '20s, '30s, '40s, and up to his death in the '60s. he played an important role in the establishment of the mexican national dance program. so you will see a lot of his various interests reflected in the murals themselves. the murals themselves, he expected a commission to create a set of maps of the pacific region that would be displayed. each of the murals is actually

an assembly of specific panels. there were six overall, four of which are 12 panels each, 16 feet by 24 feet, and two of which are four panels each, 9 feet by 14 feet. i thought this was an interesting quote from the ggie at the time of his letter, soliciting covarrubias that gives you an idea of why he was of such interest to this project. the next few slides show images of the murals themselves. the murals hung at pacific house until the fair closed in 1940,

at which point they were loaned to the museum of natural history in new york where they remained viewable until 1953 at which time they were placed into storage. they attempted to gift them to the museum, but the museum could not promise they would be displayed permanently in the museum. so at such point, they were returned to san francisco in the late 1950s. the board accepted five of the murals and installed them in public display. you will note that six murals went and five came back. there is the sixth mural, art forms of the pacific, 12 panels, 16 feet by 24 feet that was not in the set when the murals were returned from new york to san francisco. so only five of the murals were received and installed, and only five, thus, are with tida today.

there's research done by interested citizens into this potential whereabouts of the missing mural. it is still kind of a mystery that continues today, but at this point, unfortunately, it is somewhat of a cold trail. we hold out hope that stranger things have happened and we will reunite this mural with the set. it's important to note that he created six and the collection owned by tida is only five murals. 2001, the ferry buildings renovation removed the space where the murals to be installed. they were of overwhelming size jurisdiction was transferred to tida by way of transfer agreement by the board of directors in 2001. this was agreeable to both sides. they agreed their redisplay to

the public entity. the port was unable to find a location either at the port authority. the tida support staff decided to take possession. they were transferred to storage on treasure island in late 2001. the san francisco fine arts museum approached tida with a proposal to loan the murals to the mexican government. they promised to provide registration store station -- restoration. cost for the conservation and restoration were paid by both a grant from the charles d. and francis field fund to the fine arts museum of san francisco as well as funding by the mexican

government itself as well as the technical expertise for the restoration. this loan agreement between tida and the government of mexico was approved by the tida board on may 11th, 2005. at that time, the murals were transported to mexico. their conservation and restoration work was performed in mexico. supervision provided by tida. conservation and restoration work included removal of the smoke and grime and fingerprints and other human damage as well as touch-up work to the coloring and paint to certain panels. restoration work performed in mexico was performed by mexican technicians. this was a major source of pride for mexico at the time, considering his standing.

after the restoration, this took place between 2006 and 2008, including displays in mexico city, pubela and finally at the 2007 event hosted by mexico and monterey. the next few slides are pictures of these exhibits. again, they give you an idea of the size of the murals and the considerations for display. backup to give an example. this shows one of the largest murals against the smaller murals. economy at 16 by 24 feet. excuse me. the one on the left is economy, and the one on the left is transportation at 9 by 13 feet.

so you get a sense of the size of both murals. one of the murals, upon completion of the mexican exhibit was requested by fine arts museum for a temporary loan. tida enter into this agreement for ongoing display of the murals. the murals are currently on display, and this loan agreement has been extended annually by the tida board since 2008. staff tends to bring this year's extense for the approval at the february meeting. additional loans and exhibition. loans on display in mexico generated new interest in the work. loan agreements were enter into for display of the murals. one mural was sent to

washington, dc as part of an exhibit on world's fair design. in 2011, three of the murals were displayed as part of the festival in 2007. the camm executed covarrubias. at the top, it's the city hall and at the bottom, the national museum. remaining four murals, by which i mean the four not on display at the young museum are currently stored by a tida contract and are handled at an off-site climate controlled facility. they notate all the conservation and restoration work at the time

of today. in 2016 and 2017, tida contracted for high resolution condition report photography of panels front and back. so we now have both reports stating their previous work and their existing conditions as well as photographs of those as well. the future of the murals is still being determined. prior exhibitions have been conditioned due to their status as fine art that need to be considered for an appropriate display environment. some of those are listed here on the slide. mainly, they consist of appropriate temperature control, appropriate humidity control, lighting not to exceed certain specifications with a particular

emphasis on keeping direct exposure of light off the murals, as well as basic protective measures to keep an enthusiastic public from touching it, spilling food on it, or otherwise creating human-induced damages. that brings me to the end of my presentation, and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, peter, for that presentation. i'm sure we have questions. >> thank you, peter. the murals, where were they originally displayed? were they in building one or in different exhibition halls at the fair? >> they were originally displayed all together at pacific house, which was one of the buildings, pavilions of the fair that's no longer there. itis longer on the island.

it was a variety of organizations and entities that sponsor buildings at the fair, so the murals themselves were at pacific house, which was one of those buildings, with the emphasis -- basically, the whole fair was the pacific region, but the pacific house was focused on that as well. >> well, they're wonderful. it's part of the history of treasure island. i'm glad to see that we're taking care of the murals and making sure that they're being preserved in a way that they can be viewed in the future as well. >> thank you, peter. just some few questions i have. so someone, somewhere in the world is holding on to the art form of the pacific. so i presume that tida or the city has conveyed to all the museums in the world that this piece is missing. it might show up. who knows?

because that's the nature of these things. do we have such a plan, if it shows up, for people to be on the lookout for it? it would be great to know this piece is out there, we presume, right? >> through our partners at the fine arts museum and the arts commission, certainly there's an awareness that hopefully this mural is somewhere. certainly -- how would i say this? it's been such a long awareness for so long that there's probably one of two possibilities -- well, there's one of three possibilities. i think the worst is it fell off a ship somewhere and is at the bottom of the atlantic ocean. we always assume that if it is still somewhere, that someone has it and they know exactly what they have, and because of that, they're not interested in

advertising it or sharing it or it is somewhere unknown what it is. so through fine arts museum, through the arts commission, through several interested public -- excuse me. private citizens in san francisco, there's been a lot of legwork done, to, just to extend the paper trail or chase down what happened to it between new york and san francisco. unfortunately, a lot of those efforts have been unsuccessful, but it is certainly known in the art world. it is certainly a known mystery, and it's our hope that if the murals did surface one day, we would be able to reunite them all. but, realistically, like i said, if someone has it and knows what they have privately, they're hanging onto it for a specific reason. it's hard to go out around the world and make sure everyone

knows we have this. we do everything to enforce that fact that we're looking for it and want to reunite them at any chance we get. >> you already said there's tremendous public interest on this particular artist. he's world renown. it's important that we have it planned for exhibition, storage. i'm wondering, again, just to throw it out there, we have this substantial amount of money that we're going to be spending to purchase and bring arts to the island. somehow, we need to have a program for this particular piece of work that generates international interest, as it has already. just something i want to throw out there. at some point, it's going to be

part and parcel of the landscape of treasure island. >> question. peter, how much is it costing us to store and conserve the panels that we have? on an annual basis? >> the storage costs, we have them stored along with the treasure island museum collection items that were gifted to tida from the navy five, seven years back. probably the annual yearly costs for all of that storage -- i don't have it immediately in front of me, but it's under $8,000. that's for all the murals, crates, and all the packaged items from the museum's collection. considering the works, considering the jobs that our art handler does, that's a very reasonable yearly amount. >> i think the hope is that they will eventually be unveiled

either on a permanent or a temporary basis so that people can certainly see. is there some sort of interest by the treasure island museum group? >> just to touch on your first point, yes, we're all in agreement that ultimately the panels -- the public is much better served by the murals being out on display rather than in crates, so we continue to make sure that appropriate entities interested in borrowing the murals for exhibitions know that we're willing to work with them. like i showed earlier, we have done several exhibits in the past, and we are, obviously, open to accepting proposals for additional appropriate loans down the line. the treasure island museum, i know that they have certainly expressed interest in support for finding a permanent home on the island for the murals. i don't know, again, based on

the size, if the actual kind of museum facility, whatever shape that may take, is ultimately where the murals will be housed. bob can speak of this more. as we're getting into assessing the buildings, one, two, and three, for uses, some of the environmental conditions necessary for displaying the murals will be considered as we're looking at the improvements and changes to those buildings with a potential eye for installing them in one or two of those buildings. >> one of the things that we're working on is an rfq for an architectural and engineering services with emphasis on preservati preservation architect to assist us in doing an assessment of several of the historical buildings, notably buildings one, two, three, and the torpedo building, so assess what will be required to