electro the pole the project proposes to derail 2 small places into the pole it includes the maintenance during the duration of the light installation and will be installed. the department preservation staff was brought to the architecture design committee on they're meeting and at the ar c meeting we got the design of the maintenance and the removal of the proposed light rail utility bongs. the ar c commented the boxes detracted from the goals and the agreed that the powell's poles installed will be preferable they need to be e 4r07kd to shape the box and the ar c recommended they be turned toward the street side and they

lowered the box 10 feet below the position and the box have been turned toward the street side. the designs have been added to the box and the staff asked the designs be designed further the ar c said the maintenance and the removal of the illuminate box and the project sponsor project sponsor will have measures to install the box and have a removal plan and details for repairing the drill holes the staff recommend the details b will be for the maintenance activities. in addition to the two letters of support including in our packet we got support from the union district.

the planning department recommends approval as that appears to the secretary of standards for the rehabilitation prior to the permits the sponsor will work with the staff to fireman lists the utility box and the visible wooirz will be the color to match the boxes and the project sponsor should submit a maintenance and removal packet to the staff. this approval will be for a two year period and return to the appropriateness at the end of the two years the drivers should be installed and reviewed and that's prior to the permits the commission may have concerned and one option for the commission to continue this item to reverted it back to ar c the

staff understands there be might be other questions with that, i'm going to turn it over to the project sponsor if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. >> thank you you mime ben davis the ceo and the group that brought the bay lights into existence. about a month before the bay lights were put in i was approached by two folks with a vision it's important to the city that will drive the energy that is long embarcadero. go ahead and play that george >> it was a beautiful vision

you know this 2.1 work of art that reflects above our heads and both celebrating they're open environment but more beautifully using the light and energy and movement to seriously connect the community up and down market street that is a sense of community involvement and not only to me but the team that made the bay lights possible the same team that was the designer of the record met the champion to make this design possible on market street we love market street and the lights we were trying to figure out how to minimize the touch u touch and i'll i'm going to turn it over to another clearing but good news a great debt of

gratitude we've sharpened that project and they've let us find a way to bring the vision to market street in a way that i think you'll like and frapping will talk about that. they've also will ultimately save our project money it will be privately funded but parsons has leaned into the challenge of how to address our concerns and in the next few minutes we'll easy some of the concerns on the permit for the hearing a little bit fufrpt i'll i'm going to turn it over to the designer of record of the bay lights project and they'll put their stamp of approval on the light rail project >> i'm from parsons the project

manager this has been technically more challenging than the bay lights project extending two miles of led lights so they appear their floating in space and to have the slight go it impact on the landscape but it needs power and it needs the data that relates to what happens with bart so it needs a communication devices needed to put this somewhere so the light rail project is powered by the path of goal lights and the pour source oriented if from 23 cabinets along market street in the area of our project. the way the project is designed

we take the power from the cabinets and route it through the existing conduits for the path of gold up to boxes we we're originally thinking of putting on the boxes and within the boxes it converts the ac power required for the lights and the place we put our communication wifi devices it takes the lights from the source that tells us when the trains are coming above ground we went through an evolution it's complicated we needed to figure out the power from the cabinets up to the light and how often do the power feats need to occur within the length of the project we needed 83 power feeds so, so

one of the first irrational ideas we had when we started this project was suspending a box near the pole and that quickly proved to be infeasible it required a thicker light and that would be complicated to support the light and more unsightly and then we evolved from there and said we need a box in each of the 83 polls so when we first came to you with had a box 18 inches by 20 inches by 9 inches deep 0 so it was a good size box we looked at narrowing the box so what we

presented previously was a narrow box it was 40 inches tall, 11 inches wide and 8 inches deep is fits into the pole profile. also, we looked at putting the equipment in the because of the poles and within the because of the poles it's a pretty complicated space in there and it proved difficult to fit the, you know, the multiple power sources and the communication devices in the space but more importantly those devices need to be in a weather tight container the boxes are tight and the equipment stays secure in there with the equipment in the base we just you couldn't figure out a way to have it in there and still function and

also it would be a maintenance headache as well because there's a lot of weather impacts to it. but, you know, we were still really trying to scratch our head and think how do we get rid of the boxes because the challenge is each of those feeds needs an enclosure for our those devices and so we kind of went back to the drawing board and we came up with an idea that could get rid of the boxes so and this is something we kind of figured in the last couple of with weeks we met with you earlier in the month and essentially what allows us to do that all the individual power sources and

communications devices within the 83 boxes we brought them booking back to the existing cabinets on market street 83 cabinet that controls 40 poles so we took the equipment from the 8 to 10 policies and proposed to put in a larger box fattened on the outside of the cabinet and that achieves the same results that the individual box on the pole we still need the hole in the pole because we need to get the wire out of the pole from the inside of the pole to the top but we could precede with our design without the boxes. and thanks to you president chiu you really pushed us the design is an editor process there is no

one small caveat and that's in the locations were there were d.c. muni feeds there's not that many along the system we're not exactly positive that there are no d.c. muni feeds within the condos we want to use in those will cases will prevent us from co- locating our system with the muni system based on good electrical design we don't think they're there but there's a one hundred of a chance they're might be we might have to look at an alternative configuration that may require a box on a pole but we may be having a handful. so with that, i'm conclude >> and that concludes the

sponsors presentation? thank you >> commissioners, comments or questions anyone want to go on. >> commissioner johns. >> so we can remove this item from the agenda. >> we'll still be in the hole. >> yeah. i need nor information on the holy really appreciate your work on this i guess my basic point is didn't i didn't want to say anything to start the pole. >> we felt the is that you. >> i was thinking why if they put those underground so i guess i'm very pleased to hear even though i wasn't at the original meeting tell us more about the hole so if we can solve that problem. >> i think we did well with the hole at the earthquake meeting

but it's a 3 quarter of an inch hole. >> what is the elevation. >> whatever elevation you want but to minimize the incapable coming out but at the because of the function it is your. >> maybe in between the two connection points. >> anyone from staff companion on this mr. fry it's a significant change to the page. >> tim frye department staff we have i believe you can handle it here you will have to rise the conditions of the approval in the finding of the motion we have a revised motion to pass out by the but it will still need tweaking we can do that. >> if we can have a distributed

any other questions or comments while we do this. anything. commissioner johns >> as i understand it those standards are enamel; is that right. and where i'm if you drill through enamel when you fill them how do you take care of a surface that looks good? >> their paint but not enamel. >> the posts are cast iron aren't they. >> but what's on top of the cast iron. >> the coating. >> i don't know if that will crack it's the natural thing to crack. >> let's assume it cracks what then. >> in speaking about there is graffiti and people trying to

mark it so i think this is a question that they need to get answered slow another department that we have a good plan that we know what's happening. >> do we have is prepared detail by the project sponsor that's in your pact and one condition we'll ask for a maintenance plan and removal plan that the preservation staff will review. >> and i'm sure the mta has to review this; right? >> yeah. >> so this is in there. >> commissioner wolfram. >> this motion still talks about the boxes; right? >> the motion what it does it's different it includes the language about the general plan but doesn't address the change because this is not reviewed by the department staff so we could go through and change the

finding but the finding in this document has to do with the case report earlier from the previous project. >> if we could draft a motion of intent because it seems - >> yeah. we'll have way too much editing. >> let's take public comment and bring that back. >> any public comment on that item? sooend and bring it back commissioner wolfram. >> i could draft a motion of intent that we tended to approve or grant a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of the light rail the necessary changes from temporary to the light rail that includes drilling a hole but no connection to the boxed and come back to the hearing. >> commissioners, i was just

spanking to deputy city attorney melinda burns she stated you may approve the project and put conditions of approval on the project as commissioner wolfram was mentioning it that may not have to come back. >> deputy city attorney marilyn burns the general motion of intent ask used when you want to make a decision contrary to the staff. >> ear finding need a grateful of provision to support another action here because there's changes to the project if i can outline those changes in how they change our conditions of approval that could be done another this hearing you don't have to make a motion of intent and have another motion. >> thank you. i think we want to approve it to move forward.

>> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. ma'am, i have a question you said in your report that this will have to come back at some mid point to get another c of a why is that for a temporary project that's only 4 years long. >> basically, we want to come back to confer that everything a one not causing damage because the two years will be appropriate because 4 years is getting to the point of the permitting project in some sense so they should come back and basically show us if there is potential to change the design which is tweaked it will be done at that time. >> couldn't we set it up to come back only if there's a

problem. >> this was my suggestion and we look at this ahead of time it's a temporary installation and treated as such and 2 years seems better than 4 or 5 years just to check in we're not asking for a presentation only to check in. >> now the project is of a certain scale it seems like it's less impactful than before i wanted to congratulate the team it was a great surprise to hear that this is the status of the project so thank you very much for hearing what we had to say and following throw in a magnificent way. >> i was interested in the procedures so this going to the

planning commission i was interested in our comment alison and your original motion in the coordinating with the arts commission or the safety i think the exhibits what such done on the bay bridge is fabulous by market street the safety and transportation and other aesthetics and safety considerations or considerations how much of that is being look ated. >> commissioners tim frye with the defendant as anything happening many the public right-of-way it will require a lot of conversions so we're going working with the project sponsor the dpw and mta and the arts commission because it's a art installation within the public right-of-way has to go through their own review process

they've had one meeting so standard practices is two more we'll forward your motion to the arts commission so show them our input but no more jordanian having to occur moving forward. >> commissioner hyland. >> i wanted to thanks the project sponsor because he saved me from having to oppose the project as opposed to the utility box i'm excited and looking to it being temporary i agree with president hasz that we need a 2 year check in point to see the actual installation is professionalism and it if so something we actually like to permit but thanks. >> thank you. commissioner wolfram do you want

to take a crack >> i'll make a motion to approve the project with the add condition with no mounted boxed to the poles and there's only one pole i assume you'll need with only one kwaefrt an inch holes not two and i think we can keep the other conditions that upper there. >> commissioners sorry to interrupts tim frye with department staff only for the staff to eliminate any references to the utility box. >> yes. >> and to be sporadic overview specific on the holes a range of innovation so we are clear. >> and probably as closed to the patent area has possible.

>> did that seem like. >> oh, second and one further amendment and i know it's going there but this is commissioner johns point about the emmanuel and repair that mta comments on the repair after the fact and any shifting will happen in the drilling we want to understand the emmanuel to be maintained. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner wolfram you made the motion and commissioner pearlman you seconded it. i'm going to read back but i know i missed one portion of it. so there is a motion and a second to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions amending the draft motion and striking any

references to the pole being attached to the box and that the box not be mounted to the pole and only one 3 quarter of an inch >> and also located as close in height to the cabinets. >> and that the hole be located as closed to the i'm sorry. >> place. >> place as possible and that the mta comment on the repair of maintenance of the finish. >> finish yes. >> on that motion commissioner hyland. commissioner johns >> commissioner matsuda your commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram arrest president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 7 to zero. >> congratulations. commissioners that will place

you on item 7 at 350 bush street request for review and comments. >> good afternoon. commissioner kelly wong department staff the project is a review and comment for the property restoration the mining exchange building for the planning commission motion associated with the previously approved certificate of appropriateness case no. 2000.541 a the subject building was constricted in 1923 and horrifying known as the my wife

and i exchange building 350 bush street is is a 2 story brick building with terry cot exterior and roof the exterior request with greek elements in april of 2001 the previous sponsor had a certificate of appropriateness for the recession of the my wife and i exchange building and a construction of a new tower construction in 2001 the advisory committee held a hearing and found the proposed project to be in compliance with the secretary of standards and the arts 10 and 11 of the planning code. in november 2001 the planning commission approved the project with the condition that the proposed alternatives return to

the looked- preservation braid for the comments for the historic building. since in january 1, '29 the historic preservation commission was conveyed atsz at the section having jurisdiction over the duties and responsibility of the landmark presently advising board it for the review and comment by the historic preservation commission. the proposed project is the restoration of the looked building and the exterior and interior finishes specifically the project includes at the interior general cleaning up and repair of the terry cost and granite and steel windows and installation of new doors removal a of a historic sign and

the removal of the skylights and enlargement of one window. at the exterior the replacement of a decorate plaster walls and the copper ceiling with the lights and restoration of missing elements and the installation of new columns and flooring and installation of a public exhibit dlooi delay representing the economy and during the concussion of the temporary shoring at the exterior and interior. based on the review of the drawings and the correspondence with the project team the proposed project meets the secretary of standards for the provisions of article 10 for the following the proposal is comparable and respects the characteristic of the looked designation the proposed work

will not damage distinguishing character of the landmark designation and the alter arbitrations are contemporary with the landmark property. based on those finding the department recommends approval of the project to address outstanding issues the project sponsor will continue to with work the planning department preservation staff and provide final speefgsz and details pertaining to the landscaper and the information is in our packet. the department received no general inquires about the proposed project, however, the design team is here and has prepared a short presentation to review the details of