>> good morning, everyone. welcome to our land use and transportation committee of monday, march 5th, 2018. i'm katie taeng, chairman of this committee. to my left is supervisor safai. we'd like to thank 1 fgovtv. mr. clerk, are there any announcements. >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. items acted upon today will appear on the march 13, 2018 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and i believe we will need a motion to excuse supervisor kim from our motion today. can i get a motion? >> supervisor safai: so moved. >> all right. without objection, supervisor kim is excused, and mr. clerk, can we please call item number one. >> item one. [ inaudible ]

number 7504, lot 011, as landmarked under article ten of the planning code. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and we have a representative from supervisor sheehy's office today who's the sponsor of this office. >> thank you, chair tang and supervisor safai. >> my name is colton 2 ang, and and i represent supervisor she see. who can speak to this a little more is desiree smith from the planning department, and she has a powerpoint for you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is desiree smith with the planning department. item before you is the recommendation to recommend landmark designation on the diamond safety wall, in the

diamond heights neighborhood. the property was nominated for landmark designation through a community sponsored landmark application submitted by robert pulliam to october 21st, 2017. on november 18, 2017, the -- [ inaudible ] the diamond height safety wall is significant under criteria a. a planning effort led by the san francisco redevelopment agency from 1961 to 1978 that resulted in a dramt atic reshaping of the area. the area regional modernist designed mixed housing policies and extensive use of san

francisco, glenn canyon and the bay. it's also significant under criteria c as a notable work of bay area artists and artwork, and is a visual landmark, a gateway in diamond heights. this period of significance is 1968, which corresponds with the year of construction. the structure also retains good integrity. lastly, the subject property meets two

just having the picture -- can you put the picture back up again, please? the previous picture. the one that shows in '68 and today. yeah, it's called a safety wall. also, this large pine tree, is that in the city public right of away way or is it on the ac land itself? do you know? >> so the lot that this structure is on, it appears to -- >> supervisor safai: it's the entire lot. >> it's an entire lot, and it appears to be on an easement that's owned by the city. now, the planning department has reached out to the department of real estate and, of course, dpw. >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> and we haven't been able to

get an affirmative answer on it. >> supervisor safai: i would say, supervisor, i'm happy to take public comment on this. i think it's a beautiful structure. i've driven on it quite a few times. it didn't jump out at me, but i know exactly where it is. i don't feel comfortable sending this forward without having answers to this questions. having worked for the department of public works, i know there's a limited amount of money available for maintenance. it also seems this is a former redevelopment area, and if it is a redevelopment area, then, ocii should be contacted. i understand they are focusing on other parts of the city, but they might have money from impact fees that they might be able to redirect over here for mint 23457 maintenance. i would not want that to be solely on public works, having it come out of their budget without those questions being answered unless there's a urgency to landmark this, and i

think we should give ourselves a little bit more time. that would be my recommendation before we make a formal motion to send this to the full board, but i'm happy to listen to public comment, but it sounds like we need direction from city departments. >> supervisor tang: again, i'll also listen to public comment, but just for these types of issues, we want to make sure that everything's clear and everyone has an understanding of their responsibilities when they come to the committee. so i'm going to call public comment. please lineup and speak. everyone will have two minutes. bob, eddie, and i'm sorry, i can't read this, but ed, and carl. >> hello. i'm robert plumb. i'm the one that brought forth the landmark designation process.

i moved to the diamond heights neighborhood in 1999. i was a big -- i'm a big lover of midcentury design. i become very passionate about things when i get involved. did a lot of reading in textbooks and articles and found this rich history through the neighborhood, and behind that, i became active in an organization, and now i'm on their national board. i was -- and through that research i did, the sf redevelopment agency was open at that time. i found one of the great neighborhood competitions in that area, and one of the competitions was for the safety wall. actually all the documents that i submitted for the landmark designation. that was in 2002 and it was all

overgrown. things didn't really go anywhere, and i was at a diamond heights community meeting in 2015, and something came up with the safety wall, and i get i would love to be involved in the safety wall and restore it. around that time, john king had written an article in the sf chronicle, which said that in terms of -- oh. >> supervisor tang: you have 30 seconds. >> oh, he wrote an article reminding us, urban art has never been confined to urban murals or picture on a wall. yet the sharp curve into the redevelopment district posed a traffic hazard to officials decided a wall was needed. a wall that could also serve as a site specific art. this was the winner of a 1966 competition, a strong bold statement. decades later, it's shrouded in

pines, yet it's a strong relic of its time. i think a designation of it would bring forward that visionary thinking and hopefully inspire more people to learn about that area of san francisco and diamond heights. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and i noticed earlier when the representative from public works was talking about maintenances, you had raised your hand. do you have, based on yush resear -- your research, any understanding of how it was maintained in the past? >> well, i think that's been the question with all of us. i do have the deed easement, a copy of that, and basically it says it is the san francisco. i have a friend who just started at the sf arts commission, so i don't know if they would be helpful with

shepherding this through, as well. yeah, i'm not sure, exactly. but we actually have what the lot size and everything. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. any other members? i called several names, so please lineup by the drape if you would like to speak, and even if i haven't called your name, as well. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm betsy eddie, and the board i serve on enthuseiastically supports this designation. also, in addition, we do have with that easement that bob pulliam was talking about, we have documentation that at that time the landmark status -- at the time that the artwork was commissioned by the -- for the -- and the arts commission

approved it, that we have documentation that public works is required to maintain the artwork. and -- but to go on, one of the important things that -- you've asked important questions because one of our immediate concerns is that the trees really need trimming. right now, trees, the one big tree that you saw in the picture, it's actually in three places growing into the structure, and there's many big limbs that i'm afraid are going to drop and damage the skr sculpture, and so i've been trying to ask the -- let's see...the bureau of urban forestry to trim those trees for a long time, because i've maintained those skull betures done -- sculptures done by the city. you've got those 18 letters of support.

one's from the glen park association, and i do want to thank supervisor sheehy and colton for moving this legislation through, as well as thanking the staff of the historic preservation commission, particularly desiree. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is michael busk. i was born and raised in san francisco. my wife patricia and i have lived in the same house in diamond heights for the last 40 years, admiring the sculpture. san francisco recently finished a commemoration of the summer love. who would have thought?

apart from being able to pull out funky clothes from your closet to see if they fit, why do san franciscans remember this time? because it is a part of the city's soul. this created an inclusive neighborhood that probably includes more trees than people. the diamond heights safety wall is not marshble or granite or bronze. it is tree. specifically, it is redwood tree, as in 300, 400, 500-year-old residence wood trees. it's impervious to bugs and the like. it stands as tall as it did originally, and i absolutely agree with the board's concern that it be cared for, but it is a -- again, it's redwood, kind

of caring for itself, but we also need to be sure that we will care for it. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> dear board members. my name is pat hendricks. i've lived in diamond heights condo association, a codonville oj for 35 years. please hear my comments today regarding the diamond heights safety wall. the diamond heights association is concerned about the future. safety wall and the immediate surrounding area. on november 11th, 2017, the front page of the san francisco chronic will featured the visit of a young mountain lion to diamond heights village. today, we are here to bring to your attention the existence of

the diamond heights safety wall, which was commissioned in the 1960's to identify the area. unless we address this issue, the existence and history of diamond heights may be lost. we suggest that this monument be enhanced by clearing out the -- several moderately sized cypress trees behind the statue, and creating a plaque honoring the neighborhood and the artist who designed this monument. help us put diamond heights village on the san francisco map. thank you. tappi >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you for hearing us. my name is betty heskin mu. i'm a resident of diamond heights for the past 41 years, as well as on the diamond heights community association. this safety wall which we are calling the gateway sculpture

is a gem, and it's one that needs attention, it needs loving care, and it needs focus because it's really in a situation where it can't be seen or appreciated. i urge you to help us accomplish the goal of seeing it as a work of art that will attract people more to our neighborhood to see the beauty of it and to celebrate diamond heights. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm ed sheffner. i'm on the board of the diamond heights homeowners association, and i only want to add to what you already heard. as representing the homeowners association, we're certainly very much in favor of designating this -- the safety wall. it was very startling to see the pictures that you saw -- showed earlier, the one from

when the wall was first built, where there were no trees, and its current status. i'd only like to point out that those trees, not only with the are -- are they growing into the wall in certain places, they're growing into the street. they're certainly going to have to be trimmed back because they're big branchs that are going to fall into clipper seemingly at a moment's notice. that's all i wish to add, and our support from the 396 members of the diamond heights village association. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> carl arnsen. i live right below the wall. i'm at 44 amber, so the wall is above my property and 48 amber. so i came here, i take mostly the answered questions.

i've lived there since 1980. the wall is extremely sturdy. you can see all the concrete at the bottom, and the redwood. and it hasn't moved any or any damage. the problem is the trees around it. just mentioned trees cracking -- that's happened a lot from there along portola and the high school. these trees along there, that was a danger, but the good news is the city's taken back trees. this is imperative that the trees get cutback. maintenance is the real thing, because from time to time some of us in the neighborhood will come and cleanup the leaves that fall from the trees, but that's the only real sort of maintenance, like, even year to year. so if you have any other questions, i'll be -- oh, the other thing i wanted to say, as

far as a safety wall, one reason it was built besides this beautiful structure, it's a gateway, just like st. francis woods has a gateway. anyone who knows diamond heights, i just tell them that's at the top of our back yard. the next house after hours, 54 and 52 amber, a car did go down in that back yard, so it's really serving a safety. if you have any other questions...okay. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, supervisors, members of the public. i'm starchild. i reached out for the liberty party of san francisco. i don't have any particular feelings one way or another

about this particular project except to say that i always hate to see trees being cut down. a lot of times, i think if trees, perhaps if they're extending over something, perhaps breaking it up, it creates a sense that yeah, that thing's been there a long time, and it's becoming one with nature. you ever seen any photographs of angkor wat, i think everything growing through it makes the site much more beautiful. so i suggest this could perhaps be preserved without removing the trees. most of the time, when they do that, they cut it back, it ends up being more ugly. but most of the time, i guess i

wanted to question the need for all these landmark designations of various sites. at least in this case, i understand this is profit property, so it's not infringing on anybody else's property rights, although one speaker raised a question they didn't know if it was city property. i don't know if it is city property. do you know -- >> supervisor tang: sorry. you need to continue speaking. we'll not be getting into that. >> no, it was a question, and i would encourage speakers to respond to questions when raised by members of the public. any way, if it's public property, and it's taking away somebo somebody's public property rights, we would object to that. in the mission, they're trying to declare a laundromat as historic, and this is just what the abuses of this process can sometimes lead to. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you for your comments.

any other members of the public who wish to speak on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. so i don't know if there are any other updates, either supervisor sheehy's office or planning or public works has for this, but i would say i would like to send this out without recommendation, and then, by the time this gets to the full board if we could have those questions that we didn't have earlier, i'd wou-- i woul speak up to the board with those. supervisor safai, your thoughts? >> supervisor safai: i just want to reiterate for the public, it's a planner, somebody is very dedicated to the community and what brings community together and design, i love this as a gateway to your community, and there are some real negative history that -- that are attached with redevelopment, but this seems to be something that's really

pro positive, and it seems as though people living in this community have been living there for years, and this is a stable community. i think it is a beautiful design, and i think i'm committed to supporting making this a landmark designation. one of the reasons for the public, their understanding why we would designate something a landmark on public property is because there is an insatiable desire to use every square inch of open property in this city, and we need to protect that, rather than building in public land. unfortunately for the trees, having worked for the department of urban forestry and department of public works, there were trees that were planted in this city and a lot of thought was not put into what types of trees would be sustainable and ripe for the environment that they rest in, and that pine tree is not, in my opinion, going to be

sustainable in the long run in that environment, and it could, unlike angkor wat, and i've been there, you're talking about stone structures that can sustain roots and trees over a period of time. this is wood, and if it fell on, that it would irreparably damage that. so we do need to find out who's responsible for the maintenance. i do think since this is a redevelopment area, it would be great to have some redevelopme redevelopment money for this, because dpw doesn't have that type of funding. so if it's the will of the chair to send this without recommendation, rather than allowing a little more time to find out, i would support that, but my preference would be to hold on and have the departments come back in one

week and give us that, but if you want to send it out with recommendation, i'll follow your lead. >> supervisor tang: i was saying without recommendation so it's just a notice that we would need the information by tuesday, and if we get it, we can have it go forward at the full board, but if not, i would ask that we continue the item at the full board. >> supervisor safai: i support that. >> supervisor tang: again, i agree with supervisor safai, i think this is a wonderful designation, and i want to thank the neighbors for bringing it to our attention, and hopefully it'll get the care that it needs. we'll do that without objection. >> the matter will be referred without recommendation to the full board with member kim being absent or excused. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you very much. item 2. >> item 2, ordnance planning 212 and 217 market street a new market hall, as a landmark under article ten of the planning code. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. once again we have colton

lambert from supervisor sheehy's office. >> thank you, supervisor. i just want to say that the supervisor's office is in full support of this, and desiree smith is here to give a little bit of the history and significance of the new erahall and why it's important. >> good afternoon, supervisors. sf gov, can i have the powerpoint please? desiree smith, planning department staff. this was initialing -- on december #t7 --

[ inaudible ] unanimously voted to recommend landmark designation. located at 2117, 2123 market street, new erahall is -- [ inaudible ] of upper market street as a commercial corridor. as well as the visalia stock saddle business. the building is a purpose mixed use building with social hall and mixed-use frontage. it's one of only nine examples of its type and retain a high degree of architectural integrity. it provided krucrucial meeting space for the oddfellows,

knights of columbus, and others. it housed the sivisalia stock saddle company, contributing to the veemt of today what is known as the western saddle design. new erahall retains the established features that were the two periods of significance, 1909 to 1911, and 1918 to 1923. department received a letter in support of designation from land time tenant academy of ballet, and cross roads training initially sent a letter of opposition, it has

revoked that after sitting down with the planning department to discussion landmark designation. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i think i might have some questions, but i'd like to go to public comment first and see who's here to speak on this item. i am going to open it up to public comment. you have two minutes. >> i'm the director of the academy of ballet. i've been a teacher there since 1988. i've been there in the earthquake in 1989. i took classes there in 1983. it has been a ballet studio since 1953, and i have a dance magazine that announces the opening of it. it's the longest running ballet school in san francisco. we're even in tales of the city, the book. the building is absolutely beautiful inside. it kept all the original walls,

that beautiful, beautiful huge hall with these huge windows. and considering the fact that the rest of the block now is apartment buildings, i think that we should keep some of the beauty of san francisco. it's been a home to a big part of the population of san francisco. we have 320 students right now, and i would like to keep as much as possible the art in that neighborhood because there would not be any other spaces of that size and magnitude to be able to house a ballet academy. if anybody wants anymore history, american ballet theater used to rehearse in that space. the movie, she dances alone was filmed in there. it has its own life and its own

history. thank you. i would appreciate your consideration. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for that information. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 2? >> good afternoon again supervisors, members of the public. this is star child, outreach director for the libertarian party of san francisco. this item sounds exactly like the type of item that i was talking about in my last comment, where basically the city government is denying people use of their property through landmark designations that would restrict how they can use it. i can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to save old beautiful architecture. i love old architecture myself, and i hate to see stuff replaced by new, soulless buildings, you know, that it's old and has character and history and so forth, but i

think it's really important that we preserve as much as possible people's freedom to do what they want with the spaces that they have. and abridging this freedom often has unintended consequences that people don't consider. you know, every landmark designation, every land use restriction, you know, every zoning restriction contributes to the problem of homelessness. we have thousands of people living homeless on the streets of san francisco because of the high price of housing, and that price of housing is high and rents are high because the costs have been driven up so much by all these various government measures that make it more difficult for people to own property -- i mean, property tax is a huge burden, and it gets passed along to renters, both residential and commercial in the form of higher rents. and if you reduce the amount of

leeway of using spaces to their maximum capacity, it's taking away dwelling units. it's resulting in people not being able to find places to live, and the city spends a quarter of a billion dollars a year in expenses for the homeless, and that is increases as a result of things like this. >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you very much. any other members of the public wishing to comment on item 2? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. so one question that i do have, and i didn't see that the property owner was here in the audience, but you know, we did see in the packet that it looks like the academy of ballet is in support of this. the property owner is not. has there been a conversation between the city and the property owner? >> yes. so the property owner is no longer in opposition, and i do have an e-mail that was sent after the packets were -- you

know, after submission, but essentially, the property owner's interested in applying for the mills act. we sat down and talked with him about the potential benefits of landmark designation, like the mills act, use of historical building code, potential legacy business, financial incentives that are available not only to the tenant, but also -- which would be the academy of ballet, but also to the property owner. i can share that e-mail here. it's pretty brief, basically, just indicating that they're no longer in opposition. >> supervisor tang: okay. well that is good to hear. thank you for that, and i will he ha evan definitely take a look at the e-mail. i think since the property owner is no longer in opposition, that should be fine. supervisor safai, do you have any questions, comments? >> supervisor safai: i wanted to ask a question of the plans department or some of the tenants. it sounds like the ballet

academy's been there for a significant number of years. they have applied for legacy business designation? >> so they're in the process, and i know from supervisor sheehy's office that they're in support of that. >> supervisor safai: yeah, because they're a wonderful candidate. they've been there for a significant amount of time. this is the first i'm hearing about it because i don't do ballet, but 30 years, that's a significant amount of time. and you say you were going to provide us with an e-mail? o oh. >> supervisor tang: thank you. sorry. was just reading through the e-mail. >> supervisor safai: all right. there you go. >> supervisor tang: all right. if there's nothing else, perhaps i can get a motion on this item? >> supervisor safai: yeah. make a motion to send this out to the full board with positive recommendation for designation

to 2117 to 2123 market street. >> supervisor tang: okay. that completes that. mr. clerk, are there any other items on the agenda today? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon. i now call the regular meeting of the health service board thursday, march 8th, 2018 to order. i ask everybody to please stand for the pledge of allegiance. [ pledge of