concludes -- concludes my brief subject to question. >> director reiskin. >> yes. a couple questions. one, we seem to miraculously have the highest rated by far be the lowest cost by far, which is great from a value perspective, assuming those numbers all make sense, so the -- was -- did the disparity between the bid prices give you any pause for concern? how could they do something so much better yet so much cheaper than the other two? >> it did. we asked a lot of questions about that, and really what it came down to with century limpg is associated with at&t. de-lloyd, they're multinational. they scoped the project large, so when they showed up, they filled the firm with their staff. mosaic is a boutique firm,

they're very agile, and they're able to scale and focus on exactly what is needed, and they did that in martheir presentation and proposal, so they came in much lower than the other companies that were willing to provide a lot more than what we were asking for. >> okay. thank you. next question is are there certain standards that we required in the solicitation for them to get us to? i know there are iso standards and this standards and dhs standards. did we specifically what level of security they need to achieve? >> yes. we did. we had a laundry list in the rfp and in the contract that they will meet, and it sort of became alphabet soup. i can ask isaac or steve -- >> i don't need to know. i just want to know was there some standards that were required, assurances that were

required, certain standards be in place. the next question is having the way the solicitation was structured, the people designing the system are then the people that are going to manage the system. what -- what does that mean for the future? does that mean that we're essentially stuck in a future perpetual sole source operator, or if we were to change vendors in the future, that somebody would have to start anew? how would that work? >> i'll actually ask isaac to answer that question, but before i give up the mic here, while he has a chance to think about the question, with you looked at all of the items, and we will -- we will not just be -- tjpa will not just be the only people paying attention to what they're doing and ensuring that they're going the right

way. we have our technology consultants who will also be ensuring that the path forward is the correct one and also maintain that quality is assured, but i'll turn it over to isaac now. >> good morning, the board members. so this is isaac chin. i'm working for wsp. i'm a technology advisor for the tjpa. so to just answer your question in short, so the in general from our technology perspective, because why we're talking about this, everybody heard, this iop, there's a lot of things coming, in the cloud. there's a lot coming from the technology, manufacturing perspective, there's change coming. so we wanted a contractor that's not focusing on the current infrastructure as well as any possible -- this new technology within the scope

because we are serving the facility from operation management perspective. we are not just saying what are is the current infrastructure. so that's why we address the future. we want the contractor when they appropriates their proposal, it should be include those feature majority is moving in the internet side will be covered. >> thank you. but i guess my question is let's say they develop that, and they have the system up and running, they're managing a system that they themselves designed. if the subsequent procurement, if they are not the recommended vendor, will the -- their successor vendor be able to manage the system that they have developed for themselves or will we have to start this process all over again? >> so i can let the steve -- >> certainly, i can take that.

my name is steve bresher. i'm the director of development for mosaic one. we build our systems so that they're structurally replacement. if you don't like us, you can fire us tomorrow. we provide you a log of record. that's the most important thing. all the records of activities that go on within your environment will belong to you. so with that, you can replace us at any time. so we -- we pride ourselves on the clients that we do have and the ability to service them, but we look at this is if we're not doing our job, we deserve to be fired, and we give you every opportunity to do that. we give you all the information that you need. if you want to walk us out the door, it's all there. >> okay. thank you. we're not looking for opportunities to fire you. i just want to make sure if we enter into a contract and build a system that it'll survive any one contractor. my last question is, aside from showing up and staying until the problem is fixed, which

certainly is a great thing, what accountablity if any is there in the contract for breaches? so if there is some security breach that brings down the transit center and deprives the public and the commuters use of the transit center and track, is there any accountablity to the contractor for that breach? >> i think that's going to be a debra question, but the first things that we'll be doing is figuring out what happened, stopping is from happening, and then, we can assess blame afterwards. and if it's their problem, then, we'll be -- >> i'm not blaming, but measures of accountablity, they are in the contract. >> yeah. we do reserve the right to pursue damages, although we do not have the right to pursue punitive damages, so just actual damage.

>> okay. thank you. >> yes, director hopper. >> yes. i'm going to simply propose that we bifurcate the contract between stages one and two, and three, four, and five. and that's because one and two are critical to convincing me the extent of what has to be done. at this point, we've got a bus station on top of a shopping center under a park. we're not an airport, we're not even a big police department. we're not a hospital. i'm wondering -- i mean, there's a big difference between, as you folks know, system resiliency, which we certainly need to have resilient fire systems and things like that, and cyber security. i don't know who would want in, i don't know if they got in, what damage they could do. this is what one and two is

doing, right? what are your threats, what are your risks? and i don't know if they did that damage, i don't know what the consequences would be. at this point, we've got three very simple things going on, and to spend $83,000 a month for the next two years on cyber security, even though it's well priced -- i can imagine it is, given these things, but i still don't know why, because the bus decks, most of the software that's going to be running the bus decks is ac transit's. i presume most of the software that's going to be running the retails -- retailers are going to be the retailers. the park, i'm not quite sure what that's going to be about in terms of software. so it may be that we need $83,000 a month for cyber security. i won't close my mind to that, but what you have to do is you

have to come back to me, and you have to say, we've done one and two, and here's what we find. thank you, $50,000, it's worth it. i've got no problem with that. but until i hear why this bus station on top of a shopping center under a park needs that $83,000 a month cyber security, i really don't want to spend it. it may need it, but it may not after you really do -- and i appreciate, looking at your bids, that i think you kind of recognize that. and i'm not saying that you wouldn't come back and say, after one and two, you know, that $83,000 a month that we want, we're not going to need it. i'm not saying that. but i'm saying it because i'm

curious. i want to know the risks, and i presume the architects and mechanical engineers, and everybody we spent years and years with have built in good resiliency, so i'm just saying, let's bifurcate the thing and say guys, have at it, and really do a deep dive. and the other thing i hope you would come back with is regard to the threats, you know, we -- we are giving you the keys to the kingdom, and the jewels, and you are creating your own jewels in creating the macrokingdom. but that means you are the bigger target than we are. if somebody really, really, is a good hacker, i mean, russian level, chinese level, it's

mosaic 451 that they would say, you get there, and you've got all the gold. you've got the airport's gold, you've got this gold, that gold. you would have -- you don't have to address it now, but you'll come back after one and two, and say and this is why you're not making your security worse by putting it in the hands of a third party who then does become, because of their virtue of the systems that they have the keys to, you know, the people that you want. i know that, you know, in most practices now, there's a whole move to -- with the idea that everything is hackable, to disaggregate. a little bit back to the nike net like we had in the old days. this system is isolated from

that to a little extent. to the extent that we put everything together, maybe after one and two you guys will say, okay. we want some walls in here in this thing, and that's what we're going to build for you because yeah, you are too integrated. so my suggestion is find out what these guys are going to tell us about our needs and come back and tell us what it's going to cost to maintain that security that they then say we need. >> so director harper, i guess the line to install the system and develop criteria for monitoring the system, the 550 peryear, or the 83,000 permonth, that's for updating the system and monitoring the system. are you suggesting -- >> no, no, i'm not -- >> if we get attacked, we have to call somebody to help us. >> yeah, they'll figure out in

these stages. but to enter into something now, saying we need $83,000 a month for security. >> actually, it's 46,000 plus. it's 46,000. >> i just say 83,000. >> that's the contract, and much of the costs are up front, so the implementation free was 47,000, the staffing fee is 1128, and it's possible that could be used up before opening. >> i just think it would make sense to educate us first where we are at with things, and come back with a report saying this is what it would cost. >> can we come back with a report as part of this process -- sorry. >> yeah. this is just a contractual part.

obviously rkts the things that we need -- >> yeah. my concern with this is we have an incredible complex building, so even on the park, as simple as it looks, we have a lot of infrastructure run on the network up there. all of our fire light, safety, emergency, the water recovery, everything on the bus deck except for what the supervisor's office will have with ac transit, all of the signage, the way finding, that's all on the network. if the network goes down, the building goes down, and so it would be like turning on your computer and surfing the internet without having your virus on. that's our concern, that time is of the essence. we need to move forward with one task -- one through four will be somewhat overlapping. we will not finish task one, finish task two as we go along. >> director gee? >> yes. that was going to be my

question. if we were to take this in pieces, we would probably not lineup with those dates that we've been talking about. so as a compromise, i would suggest we -- happy to make the motion to approve with the report at the next meeting about threat assessments that have been identified as top priorities first, and then a subsequent report of risk analysis and investment, and not just to the building, because as i recall, we have other things beyond the building that were implied in our naming rights agreement that safety and security of the neighborhood was of utmost importance, too. this is not just about the building. it's much bigger when we look at threat assessment and risk to the neighborhood. so is that a reasonable request that in april or may, that a threat and risk assessment be brought forward so that we know

what the consequences and risks may be and how they're being addressed -- or could be addressed or you're working to address them? >> yes. >> would that -- >> yeah, i think so. if it's truly -- if they can understand the comeback, and that the board needs it -- minor things in terms of the contract that we're looking at is it's really not just insurance, but these folks having the keys and the jewels should be bonded, and we should be asking for a bond as -- with respect to. i mean, the founder got into some trouble with torrey pines because he lost control of a couple of underlings.

it wasn't his fault, but he lost control of a couple of underlings, and torrey pines went do you object. so we want to get control of something there, don't lose control of these folks, because these guys are going to have everything, and they need it. i agree. so if the understanding is to kind of come back with this thing in a report, then -- and where we can, as you say, fire you tomorrow, and say nice report, thank you very much, reevaluate, come back, then fine. sfl >> i did hear a motion. >> what. >> oh, something else? >> oh,sub contracting? i don't want to see kaspersky anywhere near this, and you know why. >> i heard a motion and a second. did you have a comment? >> just to modify the motion. >> comment, i think this goes without saying, but i want to make it clear to our chief safety officer that we wouldn't be asking you to bring anything to the board that would be considered security sensitive

information, so there may be things that come from your initial analysis that would not be appropriate to share in a public forum. i think i can speak to the board -- >> there's our vulnerablity report. look here. >> so we have a motion and -- >> second. >> thank you. first and second. no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. [ roll call. ] >> so that's five ayes. item 12 is approved. ready for your next item. >> yes. item 13. >> 13 is approving the recommended applicants to the citizens advisory committee. >> can we do this very quickly. >> okay. motion. >> second. >> we've got a motion and second. any members of the public wants to comment on the item?

>> great report by the way. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you. [ roll call. ] >> that's six ayes. item -- excuse me. that's five ayes, and item 13 is approved. with that, i'll go ahead and all your next item, which is the annual election of chair and vice chair pursuant to the tjpa joint powers agreement, item 14. no members of the public have indicated they want to comment on the item, and are there any nominations? >> volunteers? >> i would nominate mohamed nuru as chair. >> second. >> great. >> whether he wants it or not. >> director reiskin nominating director nuru as chair, and vice chair gee seconding that. are there any other

nominations? seeing none, and as i noted, no members of the public wanted to comment -- [ roll call. ] >> the motion to elect director nuru as chair passed. the next up is the vice chair. do we have any nominations? >> i would nominate director gee. >> current victim. >> i like the way that was said. >> director reiskin has nominated director gee, and i -- >> second. >> we've got a second. with that, are there any other nominations? no other victims? okay. then seeing none, no members of the public wanting to comment on motion to elect director gee as vice chair --

[ roll call. ] >> the motion to elect director gee as vice chair has passed. that does conclude your regular agenda. you're scheduled to go into closed session at this time. we've not received any indication that a member of the public wishes to comment on any of the items listed. >> so should go -- >> you have . >> all right. the tjpa meeting is back in session on march 8, 2018. can you sum up the closed session. >> as to item 18, conference with labor negotiators, the board unanimously appointed chair nuru as its designationed representative for negotiating

a contract with the executive director. >> that does conclude your agenda for today. >> okay. our meeting's adjourned. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> 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 ci