there are only two other landmark buildings nearby. the first is 213. -coninstructed by [inaudible] occupied by sisal pool. the vecd landmark is the landmarked ingleicide church. 1970 ocean avenue is a very different property type from the other two landmark. the department received 8 letters of support. the letters were admitted from your packet so have a copy here for the record. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to designation of 1970 ocean avenue as a article 10 landmark and the department will provide additional public correspondence in the historic prenchivation correspondsance folder. staff has met with the

property owner rev sl times and shared the report with them and we are continue toog work with them on a potential project. the department bleechbs the building meets the established eligibility requirements and landmark status is warranted. the department recommends initiate the designation. if initiated today the department will return with a resolution recommending article 10 landmark designation to the board of supervises. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer questions. if there are no questions i like to give the project sponsor a chance to speak and followed by the property owner. >> thank you. project sponsor want to come forward? >> dpood afternoon president wolfram and commissioners mpt my name is terri, the preservation director of the art deco in california. the membership organization seek

tooz educate and increase public awareness through preservation and promotion of the art architectural music and design. when our organization found out about the unusual sale we realized it was time to make the nairbld landmark official. together with help from dan squeerfb ocean avenue association applied for grants, the ellis ross carry grant and national trust for historic preservation. with that funding plus a grant from ingleside [inaudible] art deco san francisco theater the designation it deserves. you know me as a author of book on timothy fluger and his work [inaudible] designed in northern california and the 20 and 30. the [inaudible] san francisco landmarks since 77

and 95 [inaudible] all his original theaters only with tularry and downtown tularry are demolished. [inaudible] large show stopping mewy theaters can act as important anchors for and bring neighbors and communities toorpth. former elrey was in the category of a show stopper [inaudible] during the period included chinese references and represented exotism between ww 1 and 2 and embrace of modernism. the original massing the building and floor plan of the original theater and interior details remain in tact despite poorly executed

renovation that can be reversed. the [inaudible] several years ago i went to a 80 celebration of the theater and the fundraiser organized by dan weaver and [inaudible] the packed house had plans for generating the [inaudible] and watched the original movie shown in 1931. it was a major community event bringing together people from many surrounding neighborhoods in the district as well as others in the bay area. we believe a landmark designation will help foster the return of the striving theater to the community. i will pass it on to chris who is doing the landmark designation for us. >> thank you. >> thank you. my name is christopher plank and want to wrap thes up because i know someone from omi would like to speak. i'm proud to prepare

the nomination and available to answer any questions afterward. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, alex mu lainy and i am the publisher of the neighborhood newspaper and a community activist. i am a neighborhood resident. at the time with city hall to figure a way to activate the build{help the 10 want with restorationism in january when i began a save el rey compain we held a community meeting and #35cked the community room and there are a lot of people that cherished the building in the neighborhood. i just can't emphasize how important it is to so many people and especially to the community. i

think it's the linchpin for revisalizing ocean avenue. that two block area is the only part where it is slow now. i urge you to support this propersition. thank you. >> thank you. at this pime we will take public comment on this item. any other members of the sponsor team? please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is dan weaver. excuse my voice today. dan weaver and the executive direct orphthe ocean avenue association and a long time ingleside neighbor activist. this is great news that a church stopped owning the el rey. the church started owning the el rey 38 years ago and stopped being a movie

theater and started being a church it is down hill. not that churches are bad, but the problem here was that the church didn't have any idea how important the building they inherented was and as a consequences many mistakes were made, in fact every time something was done to the front facade it was wrong and it needs to be taken down. similarly, the-not similarly, the utility systems in the building were allowed to deteriorate to the point where the building wasn't operational because the roof leaked. it hadn't been fixed in 38 years. all the utility systems were down. i'm wondering if the city even though this isn't a landmark could have in perhaps in other cases it do things to

treat the building properly or require the owner to treat it properly. for example, make sure that the building inspection department checks to make sure it is cared for properly and when somebody who is owner of a building wants to put in the wrong windows and wrong doors and wrong deckations to tell them no that doesn't work. it is interesting because on ocean avenue we have at 1400 ocean a plebeian produce market that closed and now is rehabilitated and in that case the planning department step in and said okay, this building is more than 40 years old, we are going to work with you to make sure you rehabilitation and take care of it correctly. it is not a landmark, it will never be a landmark but the city took care of the building because it i guess they wanted to or the

planning department. this should have been done with the el rey, it would have been helpful around. but where we are with the church not there so we are able to landmark, that is a great thing for the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. at this time we will take pub luck comment on the item. i have two speaker cards. john goldman. >> flaub [inaudible] representing the owners. [inaudible] as soon as we got the building we started doing repairs and that building [inaudible] it was completely-mold was growing and took permit and removed the mold and we are in the process working with planning to see what [inaudible] we have no objection with it. >> thank you. mr. goldman did

you want to speak as well? >> john goldman of goldman architects. work wg the owners to figure the best way to restore this building. i'm a huge timothy fluger fan and collecting industrial design for 30 years and been a member the art deco society on and off. i have ever book about fluger and had this for years. i have been a huge fan of fluger. modarrin is my favorite style so if anyone is worried about my respect for the building, don't be. my goal along with the owners is figure the best way to restore the building back to what fluger had. his original drawings exist. a lot of the details facade exists. is covered up over the years by

bad renovation and the store fronts are not the way they should be. the marquee is gone and the tower. all the details have been either hidden or removed, but my idea is try to get it back to the way it was in 1931 to the extent possible. i love the building and owners love the building and will do right by the building and very much in favor the proposed landmark status. we are looking at state and federal landmark status. we like the idea the tax credit and using the historic building code so see major advantage for the project. just to emphasize, very excited about this. i want to put the building back the way it was. if you have any questions i'm available. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak, if so please come forward. seeing and hearing none we will close public comment and bring back to the commission.

commissioners. comments, questions, a motion? >> i move to initiate the landmark status based on the staff recommendation. this is very exciting and wonderful to hear the testimony sof the owner and architect and the art deco society. it is very thrilling. >> i second. >> great. >> just a question. could the owners-maybe do gap museum there in the corner? that would be nice. i'm very encouraged the owner and architect are here and because it really takes a good owner who wants to be a steward to bring a building back and in the last number of years a number of owners who have been very excited and done really amazing jobs restoring and reusing their building, so thank you and look forward to

seeing what comes of it. >> we have a motion and second. >> there is motion and second to initiate landmark designation. hasz, yes, johnck, yes. mat sutda, yes. hyland, yes. >> item 9. 246, 1 st street. >> tim fry, i would like to introduce you to john zimer the newest member of the preservation staff. john recently moved to the bay area after working for the minnesota department of transportation where he reviewed transit projects in the twin cities region to make sure they complied with section 106. he also served as a project review

manager prior to that for the ohio shipo. in that capacity he handled section 106 compliance and reviewed historic rehabilitation tax credit projectsism a graduate of university of pennsylvania historic preservation program and join me welcoming him to the deparchlt. >> you have to have people named jonathan. >> jonathan zimer, department staff. the application before you is request for major permit to alter for building upgrades. located at the intersection of 1 sf and tehama the property is adjacent to the ramp from freemont street to to thbay bridge. designed in 1929 by heny #3450iers in the art modan style, a division was used and detailed facade facing first street. the reinforced con

crete building and stucco and con traet industrial windows and arches by fluted piaster and decorated freeze with motifs along the parapit. it is active use of office space serving as a office and printing shop for phillips and van orden printing company. the scope of the project consists of interior and exterior alterations outlined the project plan and case report. staff determined with the recommended conditions the proposed work will be in conformance with article 11 and secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. specifically, exterior work and seismic reinforcement are proposed compatible with the defining features. the mez zeen preserves the character defining entry and double height space at the north oop east corner, recessed 20 feet

and 6 feet from tehama. the floor slab will be minimized or glass railings [inaudible] materials at the interior. the new roof deck and elevator penthouse are reversible in nature and minimally if visible the deck will be located along secondary elevation. in kine steel windows will replace the north loading dock and [inaudible] with matching finishes to provide compatibility. the new expanded mez zeen will increase the building floor to area ratio. while minor les than 10 percent the floor area and located in the building envelope, the increase is typically not allowable for the planning code as it is article 11 building. however, section 128 c-2 of the code states transferrable development rights may be transferred to a

building provided the historic preservation commissionfides the expanded space through the use of tdr can make seismic enforcement of the building economically feasible. the upgrades achieve conformance of the california building code without deminshs character defining featureoffs the building while the structural stability will better protect the resource during the next seismic event thmpt voluntary upgrades are made financially possible through increased value of the building. commitment to the previvation of the phillips and van orden building is exempifyed by project sponsors agreement to hire a consultant. our recommendation based on this analysis the project approve with the following conditions of approval. one, a full mock

up or partial cut of windows at the south facade for review and approval prior to ish united states of site permit. two, a full mock up or partial cut of new windows proposed of the panel above the north loading dock provided to preservation staff for review or removal. three, a material sample for the exterior of the new elevator penthouse be provided to preservation staff for review and apruchbl prior to issuance of the site permit. four, landmark designation report and associated documentation for the phillip squz van orden building be completed for laering and action by historic preservation commission within 6 mupths of planning department approval of site permit or architectural addendum. since the commission packets were distributes rchbed

no letters of support. one from the project sponsor pry to the packets and no known opposition. [inaudible] studio team t and other members the sponsors team are here to provide background on the evolution of the proposal. this conclude my presentation and available for questions. >> i have a quick question about the condition of approval. just curious, this condition of approval requires action by the planning department. it seems smaum unusual. the owner has no control over this condition. >> sorry, which condition? >> the condition about the designation is completed within 6 months. >> just they submit the report. >> the owners are submitting the report? >> that is correct. >> we want the report submitted within 6 months of approval. >> okay , thank you.

>> as soon as you start speaking sfgtv will go to the kreen. screen. >> my name is [inaudible] studio c team and the architects for the project and like to get cim to introduce the team to you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time and consideration today. john burin vice presidents development for cim group. we are a real estate investor and developer located in los angeles. we invest in

projects in urban locations across the united states including southern california, northern california, chicago, new york, austin, denver. multiple locations. we invest in older buildings, we invest in new buildings and also develop ground up. we have multiple-we have been in northern california, the san francisco bay area for over 10 years with multiple investments and multiple projects. we are currently owners of multiple projects, number 30 on third street, 7 on market street. 330, townsend, 340 townsend. we are a investor in the bay area in san francisco in particular and happy to be here and be working on these very significant historical buildings and hopefully soon to

be historical dedicated as well. so, with that being said, i don't want to spend too much time and pass to the team of consultant and architects and let them run through the project in more detail. we have historical architect can arg sera haun. our structural engineer [inaudible] and land use council john cevlen with [inaudible] so, we spent the last few years work wg planning staff working on our plan for this biltding. we really view if as a exciting opportunity. it is a gorgeous building. it is in a wonderful location. it is our hope that we have come up with the right motivation and plan to upgrade that protects all the beautiful features of the building but also brings it up to the requirements for modern tenants and uses. we are encouraged

that we have the recommendation of staff and worked hard to try to find the right mix to earn that recommendation and we are here to answer any questions you have. with that, i'll pass it on to chris. thank you. >> i just want to take you through the slide show a little further. so, this is the front facade on 1 s street. the lots is 75 feet wide by 182 feet #2c50e7. right now it consists of 5 stories and a basement. the roof night accommodated the penthouse and some mechanical equipment. the basement in the building right now has pg & e volts and existing office use. the ground floor has a

mezzanine of 2600 square feet in it. from a historic resource evaluation this is the [inaudible] designed by henry h myers. arg was retained by a gup to analyze and evaluate the project and confirmed it is within the secretary of standards. they established it is eligible for designation as a san francisco landmark. from a redevelopment standpoint, what we are proposing to do here is we want to add a new floor within the existing two story ground floor space. it is approximately 21 feet so asking for additional square footage there. we are planning to retain-there are existing mezzanine in the building originally from 1921. on 1 st street we will integrate in the

new floor. new windows replacing the loading dock on the north side and there are vents we like to replace which were added at a later point. on the south side the building facing the offramp we want to improve the facade and add windows mpt it makes the facade look inviting. secondly, it also provides a good opportunity to allow the building to become seismically much more friendly. by that i mean we have a structural engineer so will let him explain what that will do for the building. the building lobby and stair will be retained. the only area we are attaching is the snon hois toric freight and passenger elevators. they will be replaced and out of date and in the wrong spots. the new tenet roof deck we are proposing for

hopefully a fairly nice tenant. there will be elevator access, the penthouse and new sky lights allow light to the top floor. we consulted with the planning department and the project is with the planning department about a year or so. they asked us to consider recommendations for the original proposal. this goes back to the set back. on the north side the set back for the new windows of the arinlinal loading dock door location, the original loading dock if we look at photographs was recessed further into the building so that is what we have done. they also determined that it would be better if we have clear glass on the new windows to match the existing and that is what we are proposing here. this slide you will kind of see what-it difficult but you see there are two floor plans. the one on

the right is the shows the new extend of the second floor within that two story space. and this is a artistic rendering. on the right side that illustration is tuhamea street have and we are standing at the front door on 1 st street. the idea is you can't tell that there is a second story within the space from the exterior. this is a diagram really showing the old loading dock which is on the north side sthof building. the loading balk we think was added sometime around the 80's and there is existingventilation louvers installed for make up air for the space at that time and want to restore that back to what it originally would have had. this illustration

shows what we want to do on the south side. right now that is a blank facade. there was a building there at one point. this was a party hall and now that that adjacent building is gone and the ramp is in place we want to add windows. this is quickly looking on the inside. this is the area which are historical which is the existing lobby. we are not changing anything here and we are also maintaining the determined that the handrails are historical so maintaining those. this shows the extent the roof deck which is fairly substantial but we think it is a great area for tenants. the building originally interesting enough was designed to have 4 stories added to it so this was a easy thing for us to do. this will show a artistic rend ering of the tenant roof deck.

there is a wall on the right hand side acting as a screen to hide the dpisting mechanical equipment on the roof. and that brings us to the end of thiz presentation. we have structural engineer if you have questions regarding structural issue. >> we have any structural questions, commissioners? thank you. so, at this time seeing no further questions from the commissioners we will take public comment. any member wish to comment? if so please come forward. seeing and laering none we will close public comment. commissioners comments questions, motions? >> i move we approve with conditions. >> okay. >> second. >> i think it is well done. very well done. >> excellent.

>> if there is nothing further there is a motion and sec. commissioner hasz, yes, johnx, yes, matsuda, yes, hyland, yes. hyland. the motion passes 6 to 0. >> thank you. >> that places on item 10 for case 2016-007911 ocoa carm carmelita street. >> shelly [inaudible] preserveization staff. located in the land park district between recaller and the park. the home was biment in 1898. the building was altered at a unknown date to the current classical revival style. the proposed project is install a garage at the ground floor

level. this will involve removing several non character defining windows at the basement level and installing a curb cut in the driveway. it also involves modifying the existing concrete wall at the front property line. staff find the praumgect complies and cause minimal change tooz the form of the building. garage installation are common altderations in the landmark district. they do not detract from the character of the streetscape or setting of the district. the majority of properties on the subject street are altered with similar garage installations and the quality of the door and minimal width of the garage door and driveway make it compatible with the character of the building. staff recommends approval without modification and the project sponsor is here to walk through the project plan and answer any questions

you have about the design. >> when you speak sfgov- >> you may want to turn it sideways. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is aaron [inaudible] the project engineer for this proposed garage addition. just to further on sherys input to you guys, [inaudible] hired to help install a garage and be respective of the character in the historic nature of the

building in this historic district. i like to thank mrs. [inaudible] for her assistance and she is very helpful to us in making this process happen. we understand the symmetry involved here and trying to make sure we are matching the symmetry to have a functional garage at the same time and sensitive to had nature the materials that are being proposed. i'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding any of the materials or any the technical information, so--let me knee. know. >> thank you, commissioners any questions? no. thank you very much for your presentation. at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to speak on this matter? seeing and hearing none we will close

public comment. commissioners comments, questions, motion. >> motion to approve. >> looks great to me. acceptable. very acceptable. >> i this can we have a motion from commissioner hyland-- >> on the motion to approve this matter hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6-0. places on item 11 ab and c for case number 217-000093 lbr at fort mesen center legacy business. 2017-0000147 lbr 1301 howard street.

2017-0000144 lbr, 2140 polk street >> des rea smith planning department staff. before you are three legacy business nominations and applications submitted to the planning department december 19 and ready for your recommendation. all applications are reviewed by the office of small business prior to transmit tal. packets contain a draft resolution for each business outlines features and traditions associated with the success of each business. the first application is for flax art and design, third generation family owned art supply store that served san francisco since 1938. offering the largest section of arts and crafts supply flax is referred to as a candy store for the creative. the business reloteed a number of times throughout the history and the store reechbtly moved to oakland after the lease market

street location ended. however, the business retains a present in san francisco at its 5,000 square foot space to serve san francisco students artist, diw and hobbyist. staff find flax art and design met the criteria for listing on the registry. the next is for rollo san francisco inc. selling high end mens year in unisex fashion since 1986. stores in the castro and south of market the business attracts locals and visitors with locally designed and international fashion. mens fashion magazine named rollo one of the top 50 inflenseal mens stores. rougher toog the store as ground zero for fresh mens fashion. it has a history support thg local lgbt

community. staff find rolo san francisco inc. met the criteria for qualifying for the registry. the last application is real food company, a independent business selling organic foods in the russian hill naerbd. the business prides serving as a ink bater for up squ and coming company squz operates in the 1930 med tainian style commercial building. staff finds the business qualifys in general for listing on the legacy business registry because it meets minimum eligibility criteria, but there are outstanding questions how the business meets criteria 2 relating to continued significance to the community and 3, relate thoog the ability to carry on the traditions that define the legacy. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer questions you may have.

>> commissioner pearlman? >> the last thing you just said about real foods, could you explain what those issues are? >> sure. so, i believe it is on page 7 of your packet. we discussed-page 8 under criteria 2 relating to the business contribution the the community. the application didn't provide any news articles or any additional evidence other than the application to or letters of support to qualify or substantiate the claims to the significance to the community. it has been there for a number of years, it meets all the

basic eligibility criteria, and as part of the application we do list their website and different social media websites so based on our research our review of that information it does appear there is questions negative comments and reviews about the business that have questioned its current ability to maintain the traditions that made it successful historically, so that is one of the issues that we are raising. >> thank you. further questions? >> so you are not recommending it for legacy? >> we believe it meets the basic minimum eligibility criteria and one of the inthofent legacy business program is to assist businesses

in continuing to offer high level of service so we think the legacy business program could provide that assistance in help thg business improve upon its currents level of service. >> you have spoken to the real foods people to ask them to submit additional information? >> we have been work wg the legacy business program manager who asked-assisted the business owner in putting together the application, so they are aware of our concerns and feel similarly about the legacy business program could assist the business in- >> you mean the legacy business staff has similar concerns as you? i'm not understanding. >> the legacy business program manager expressed that they

have a similar belief that the program can assist-provide needed support to the business. >> can assist them? >> right. >> so they are supporting this? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time we will take public comment. any member of the public wish to speak on this? if so please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is howard flax with flax art and design, my grantdfather started the business in 1938. i completed the application before you so want today give you the opportunity to ask any questions. there is one item not in the application because it happened receiptly and that was last week i was standing on the stepoffs the city hall are w the executive director of sf beautiful and we were

presenting awards to 5 different artist selected to participate in the muni arts program so they will have the art work displayed on 100 muni buses going on display this week through april. i wanted to bring that to your attention as a example of the type of involvement and commitment to the arts community flax has taken with our new location in fort mason center we continue to be intergle in the arts community in san francisco. we will be lawnered to be registered as a legacy business in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public or sponsor of the legacy business wish to come forward and speak? come forward now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. richard curillo with the legacy business program. i just wanted to say

i feel strongly in support of all three of the applications eke whael including real foods company. a lot of time and effort goes into putting the applications together. i held this one back for a few weeks to make sure we understood the entire real foods company, the entire history och the company since there are multiple store squz got split up into different companies so we did spend a lot of time putting this one together and feel strongly that it meets the criteria for the legacy business program and will fit in with the other businesses that have been approved through the process. so, that is it if dwrou you have question i ask answer them but appreciate your support on all three application. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing and hearing none close public comment and bring back

to the had commissioner. commissioner pearlman. >> one thing that we may want to focus on when this comes before the cultural heritage committee and then in front of all of us, is flax to me presents a funny issue in this program about the location relative to the business. which to me are completely separated y. have been a fan of flax's for as long as i lived here, which is about-i realize it is about half my life. and i think it is absolutely 100 percent a legacy business for san francisco, but they only been at 40 mason for a year and a half and clearly the space itself is not a attribution of their success or it doesn't relate to them specifically because any particular business could fill that particular space. so, i want to vote 100 percent behind a business like

flax, but wondering if we review when the space that it is in matters or doesn't matter thmpt toy boat caf e, the space matters because all the things in the space make up the character of that business and makes it charming and gives it a lot of power in its history in that location with that stuff. but recollect in many cases the space they are in is meaningless relative to the character and cultural asset they are. the businesses to san francisco. it is just something i-in terms of refining this because in the application it talks about the space that it is in and of course fort mason is historic space and that is great and well and good and wouldn't deny it but there is no real nexus between fort mason and flax in termoffs the history

of san francisco and history of flax as a business here. >> other businesses that have moved- >> isn't it part of the legislation- >> yes, it is part of the legislation and we did attempt to make that clear in the list of features that are associated with each business. asia see sometimes they are physical features and other times it is more about the traditions or practices of that establishment and maybe that is something we could be more clear about in our case reports because it is certainly not the program is not to hinge upon just physical fabric of the business. >> commissioner johnck. >> you know, on the real food company, there is more than one location, is there not? isn't there multiple locations of real food? >> currently there is polk street location and in the past

there were a number of other locations but those were sold off or closed. >> stanyan street- >> i thought in the marina too. >> the union street one. >> this is polk street. >> the polk street location is what we are looking at. there were other stanyan street-not sure-there were a number that were sold to a different company and the name changed. >> you know if there is relationship to the real food on 24th street closed for 15 years? >> yes, i think that was one of the ones that was closed. >> what a waste of space. >> i just want to say i endorse the social mission of these businesses too.

>> commissioner matsuda. >> i just wanted to clarify that the legislation says and/or about the location and i think that is a important theme because flax is really important member of our community in san francisco so to me i don't care where it is, i will go. >> commissioner hyland. >> i support it as well and glad to see they still exist. i did christmas shopping and noticed you were not there. on market street and valencia. [inaudible] is not in the original location. >> do we all feel we have enough information about real food to- >> i feel- >> i feel uncertain. >> can the person-can you come

up and provide us a little more information about real foods? the place i go to often, but i want to know your thoughts about this. >> the history? it has a very rich history. that was included thip application of the owner so was a big part the application. they did have multiple stores in san francisco and then also in the bay area and those got sold off so the ones you mentioned on stanyan and 24th street those are sold to a pharmaceutical and we had to trace where the business went so it ended up with the current applicant and polk street and also in the marina and the marina closeed a few months ago. we feel it adds to the neighborhood and it is a important business in the neighborhood and has a rich history.

>> mrs. smith expressed reservations and shared those with you and you then went back to the owner to talk about the reservations? >> the reservations were expressed a few days ago but felt strongly about the application being on par with the ones we provided in the past. some applications have articles. we try to get those when we can. i scoured through the internet and tried to find those. this is similar to valencia whole foods which came through very recently. they didn't have letters of support or articles in that application either and it was a similar store just in a different neighborhood so think it was very much the equivalent to that but more so because of the rich history the business. i feel comfortable having this one go forward today and don't feel any differently with this application then i do with any of the others. >> mrs. smiths, just to

clarify, you okay with this? sorry, because you expressed these reservations. >> i #234ds it could be confusing but we are recommending approval. we wanted to nolet the concerns based on our research. we are able to find online it has seem customers have with the recent change in ownership and quality of service so as the application moves forward to the office of small business and small business commission that are aware of the concerns and maybe it is something that through technical assistance of the business side of the program that this particular business can benefit from that. >> maybe mr. fry when we have that discussion we can also include a situation like this in that and talk it through.

>> commissioner hyland. >> quickly, it reminds me with the debate on prop j and the notion that the legacy business would be enacted to support viable businesses and those that might be threatened so this is potentially on the boarder. >> so, do we have a motion? >> i make the motion tosupport them all. >> okay. >> there is motion that is seconded to adopt remations of approval for all three proposed legacy business applications. commissioner hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6 to 0. >> i think we will take a break before the next item. >> very good, commissioners.

>> we can reconvene at 2:30, a 6 minute break. [commission in short recess]

>> we are ready to start again. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco historic preservation for wednesday january 18, 2017. remine members to please silence your mobile devices that may sound during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off under the regular calendar on item 12 for twechbt 14-0001204 cwp. street light alternative design for van ness avenue. informational presentation.

>> preservation staff. you probably noticed there are two items on your agenda for the van ness brt project. the first is a nrfckzal item. the project team will give information for alternative for street lights long the van ness avenue corridor. the alternative came out discussion with the public and board of supervisors to explore the original design you approved november 2015. i will turn it over to peter [inaudible] the projethleet lead for the brt project. >> good afternoon commissioners. peter [inaudible] the sfmta projethmanager on van ness improvement project and will take you through a short presentation. what we looking at with the new street lights.

so, as i'm sure everyone who works in the building is aware, the van ness avenue is backgonebone of civic center life in san francisco and one the most important thorough fairs cecktding the reej nch. the project will make the street more acsisable for everyone through the first rapid transit. utility maintenance and improvements including repaving of the street, replacing waterline jz sewer lines that are over 100 years old and insure thg future reliability and public improvements like more sufficient street lighting and new sidewalk squz landscaping. the existing trolley poles and don't meet codes and must be replaced. the poles date to 1914 to support the street car

that connected the civicsenter to pan pacific. the cast iron, the spiral bracket jz deckative bases date to 1936 when van ness was widened for the golden gate bridge. over the years menee poles and parts are replaced and all the light fixtureed were replaced in the 80 and 90's. the restoration orph4 existing trolley poles is being-will be discussed on the colander item. the modern design approved by caltrans san francisco arts commission and historic preservation commission 0268. a resolution unanimously passed by the board

of supervisors september 20, 2016 asked the sfmta to make all efforts to preserve the street lamps through reuse of replication. the project staff is developing the detailed design scope of work and budget and timeline the work. new street light require new approval from the sf arts commission and historic preservation commission thmpt project staff developed 3 options. option one is the ocs pole approve bide the modern street and pedestrian lights and not a-it does want replicate historemment saidism option 2 is a hybrid historic design can straight design. the ocs poles have a tear drop

street light and pedestrian lights and future historic scroll bracket and decorative finials as well as clam shell base. option three is a hybrid historic design with a curved arm like option 2 the pole has a tear dropped street light and features a historic scroll bracket and deckative finials and clam shell base. i will show renders to give you a idea of what the street might look like with each of these designs in place. this first view shows the modern lights enfront of the upper plaza build{residential unit. this is little further down-south

from the street in front of the state building. the next view shows the same view but with the street trees included, which would continue to be along the sidewalks and length the corridor. one more view and a final view. this final view shows with all the new plantings and median and street trees. i will show the same street views and vendersion vendorings of the historic street arm. and down by the

state building andthone with the street trees in place to give you a idea of what the final product will look like. and finally, a view with all the planted median and plantings in place. finally, the new-the third option with hybrid historic design with a curved lamp arm. and finally,

again with all the plantings in place. the next steps for this alternative trolley light poles the project team finalized design details in the budget and present the option to the various stakeholders and seek approval the preferred option as needed. thank you for your time and i happy to try to answer any questions you might have about this. >> quick question. so, what is the approval process. is in who is make ing the-does the board of supervisors have vote on this? >> the approval process isn't entirely clear. this is outside the normal process so the first step would be to go back to the member thofz board

of supervisors who expressed interest and various community groups and make sure we have their support with whatever option we move flward with and then try in a expedited fashion replicate the approval process we wept through originally which is coming to you and the arts commission for review and approval of the design. there isologist the minor matter ohaving to plug the budget hole since the two options are somewhat more expensive than the original design. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman rsh did you have a question? >> yeah, are these in addition to-i can't remember the light fixtures you had originally in the design, the modern ones, are the trolley wires attached to those? >> yes. >> so do these replace those? there is a attachment at the top of the finial of a historic

looking one as well? >> yes, it is probably below the lamp arm because thee are taller. the trolley lines will attach to the new poles. >> i remember one of our conversations we taurked talked about the duplication and clutter so this won't create a additional street impediment. >> i have a question for the commission as well as for you. these are the two schemes that you are exploring and you are geing to go through the process and come back with the recommendation of one of these two, is that what i snds understand, >> there are 3. >> that is a earlier rendition where we had a rep licka historic and the modern one. we got a second historic with a straight arm instead of a curved arm. the designs-- >> so the question for the commission is would it be appropriate for us to apine on

this now as opposed to them going through the process and bringing back their selection for us to apine. >> i think we should apine it right now. >> i can wait until after public comment. >> okay. any other questions? thank you, we'll take public comment at this time. at this time does any member of the public wish to comment? if so please come forward. >> jonas is there cards? >> good afternoon members the commission, mike bouleer with sf heritage. i just like to express our appreciation for mta staff's willingness to engage in this dialogue with not only heritage but other members the coalition who you will hear from today. um, as stated by peter in the testimony, the board of

supervisors resolution urged mta to consider both preservation options and replication options. we as a member oaf the coalition recognize that the existing historic poles can not meet the programmatic or technical requirements of the project, but we are appreciative. we all several meetings with mta staff over the last few months to discuss this project and we are appreciative of their willingness to present new design options to the hpc for feedback. we do-i'm pleased that you are going to weigh in at least in part on design options. we do think we were supportive of option three presented, but do think there is room for improvement and

your input would be a benefit. we are also encouraged by the results of the arg stud y evaluating there cost of preserving or replicating the historic lamp poles in the civic senlter district and will comment on that when the next agenda item. thank you very much. >> i have speaker cards so will call the names. mar lean moy. >> my name is stephen siz man, on the board of the institute of classical architecture and art and a former board member of friend of the urban forest and we have in san francisco a unique grouping of buildings that doesn't exist xair else in

the country and think it will be a grave mistake to put contemporary looking light poles to replace the existing light poles and i completely understand that they are not up to code but it should be very easy to make suitable copies of the originals that would fulfill all the technical requirements of the codes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. darsy brawn, executive director san francisco beautiful and native san franciscan. one of the things that happened at the beginning after the war was that the municipal transportation group here in san francisco thought it would be a good idea in 1947 to rip out all the cable cars because who needs them and thankfully

[inaudible] and her friends put a measure on the ballot that stopped that and now we have the iconic cable cars not only as a symbol of san francisco but also a transportation option. these kinds of things like the lamps on van ness are geographic markers that indicate where you are. they separate san francisco from other cities and the lamps that we have are historically significant and tied to the golden gate bridge opening 6789 if we start sanitizing all of the history that we have, all the beautiful history that we have here with industrial suburden ducor, what separates us from aevd aenchd everybody's else and what makes san francisco geographically

and historically significant? one of the big reasons people want to come mere and commercials and movies are shot here is because of the historic geographic markers that create the ducor of our city. so, please please please let's hang on to it, okay. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> who ever is mobile device is sounding off if you can silence that. >> hello, mar lean morgan. i live in cathedral hill which one of the 8 neighborhoods that have van ness corridor in the jurisdiction and officer for the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. i want to speak in favor of option three for the replica of the historic street lights on van ness avenue. van ness most don't realize what a beautiful street it is. it has much

classic arts and architecture and a lot of burfl new architecture. with the implementation of the brt, the improvement of the sidewalk and streetscape, italist a much more heavily travels corridor for pedestrians and transit. with the opening of the cpmc hment, all of the hub jz development of the hub, van ness will be a major destination for san francisco and it could become a beautiful onefelt i think this is why the historic street lights lamps pine in the history with the new and old and making it such a much more pleasant pedestrian experience and traveling experience. it really important for the future of the corridor making it a viable corridor and desirable place to go. plus the fact with the new street light

design we are talking about, the current ones, the tear drop only hangs on the street not the sidewalk so in this case it is arching and the is sidewalk giving lights on the sidewalk and lights over the street. really all the van ness neighborhoods and coalition for san francisco neighbors urge you to adopt option 3 for new street lamps. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm lynne new house siegel and president of pacific heights resident association and a former member the board of directors of the golden gate bridge highway and transportation district so feel proud to testify today to thank mta and the supervisor peskin and the board of supervisors for recognizing the historic significance of van ness avenue

as the main transporter to the north and these lights as being put up to signify and commemorate the opening of the golden gate bridge. it was called at that time, the ribbon of light and by keeping these replicas of this historic events and this historic neighborhood, it will differentiate van ness avenue and van fless corridor from other areas in san francisco. we need the rt. we support brt, but this is exactly what van ness has always done, it connects the north and the south and different modes of transportation. via trolley in 1914 when the poles were first pull up or motor vehicles in 1936 when the bridge was put up and the ribbon of light was established. and now brt. by

preserving this historic connection through these option three, or even option two, you will be doing that and be differentiateing van ness from other newer parts the city. thank you so much for respecting our historic neighborhood character. >> thank you. >> commissioners, my name is jim moore shall president of san francisco victorian alliance and also speaking for hayes valley neighborhood association, one of the neighborhoods fully in support of relooking at a better option for the van ness corridor. um, most of my colleagues have spoken to you already and said pretty much what i was going to say about how important this is. there is one just remaining piece of it that i

like to present. you know with you look at either prominent boulevards like octave ye, deviz dareio and emback dareo, deloris or historic lighting in the tenderloin, i was on dewy boulevard and saw old arch lamps replaced. this is something san franciscan's cherish. i have been impressed of all the different interpretations. how well they have been done. they have poles that have historic character to them. they are fluted. they have beautiful bases and finials and it is not pure historic preservation of taking the exact one that was there, which weal will discuss on the next item and replicating or preserving it for the remnant ones or marking

ones, but this ability that i thipg you have to supplement the good intent that sfmta has shown in response to supervisor peskin's challenge and the full board to come up with a good historic option, i think you unique talent in this is not only support it but enhance and improve it. i know you evaluating all these others that have gone in. they are quite wonderful and when you look in more detail at the ones being presented and they were the only options prenlted to us as well, the pole is a round plain tube. there is no base. we can do a lot better. we

have done a lot better. they are in our arsenal of things to do and your sense of history and your appreciation of how important the historic beauty of san francisco is, will not only get these back as historic fixtures, but i think thats you have the unique ability to even improve upon them and make them fit better. thank you so much. >> thank you. i have two additional speaker cards here for catherine tran. >> good afternoon. kathleen tran. as a van ness home owner and resident and as a van ness brt/cac member, i urge the commission to support the project as it is already approved. i'm very concerned

bethat expense and time required to design consider and approve any changes to the already approved praumgect plan. i fully support the transit pedestrian safety and utility improvements that the van ness brt will bring. as a resident, i am willing to live under the construction for the 2 and a half years as outlined in the approved project design. i know that the mobility in the corridor will benefit. in considering any potential changes to the project, that are outside the normal approval process, i sincerely hope you willologist consider the serious impact on van ness residents who like me and anyone traveling using the van ness corridor. now that the project has already broken

ground, any delay in the project will pralong construction noise, reduce travel in the corridor for years. you have already deliberated on or pined on and approved this issue and project. i urge the commission to insure that the van ness brt project is completed on time and on budget. thank you. >> thank you. i also have speaker card for don savoy. >> hello, don savoyologist on the van ness brt/cac and bbw committee. as catherine was saying we have been on this particular committee for going

on three years i believe and know [inaudible] i am concerned about the delays and if you have to go through the whole approval process again, just look the next agenda item which is in front och mcallister which has been before you at least 3 times so concerned about these changes that could prolong it more. that is my only negative response enterm thofz idea of the street poles is how long they would delay the project more and add costs where there is tight in termoffs trying to find the money to cover the costs. thank you. >> any oep or other member wish to speak on the item? >> hello. steve pepal. i live along the van ness corridor

andf is transit rider and part the van ness citizen committee and wanted to echo the comments of keeping the project moving. it will be a long project. residents along the corridor will feel the pain of construction and so it is really up to this committee, the sfmta and the board of supervisors to work together swiftly to make a decision. i appreciate your efforts to work on the quality of life along the street making sure the lamps have a nice set quality but please work quickly so that a project that is already broken ground will not be delayed take longer and potentially cost millions of dollars more. >> thank you. >> any other membering wish to speak? seeing and hearing none we will close general public comment and bring it back to the the commission. commissioner pearlman. >> these are the type of things

that make me very weary and sure those people who live along van ness and worked on this for many many years. i'm torn about this because everything thatd is proposed is a completely new things. they are not replicas because they are different design. they are different height and proportion and have different elements on them. we should call a spade a spade, these are new light poles with a historic character so we are not doing any preservation here and in essence not sure why it is coming to us because there is nothing-we are not talking about preservation. there is nothing to preserve. >> it is coming to us because it goes through the district. >> i understand the process just saying rhetorically that

our opinion one way or another--mr. cumacho has been here many times and often has said there is no money for this, what are we supposed to do? the old poles don't work and here we are with something that is the diz nefiication of san francisco where we just create something hat is historic and looks historic and we feel good because we say you see the light poles they sort of like what was there in 1936 opposed to something that is part of the brt that is built in 2017. so, i'm just-i meanime don't object to the idea of having a historic looking pole. i don't object to that at all and think it is nice thing but don't know how to-the justification for the change seems like something

that's kind of a knee jerk reaction to histortism opposed to a real preservation effort. >> commissioner hasz. >> thank you. i completely concur and there is a new installation, it should be modern, new and go away. the poles i think that were already designed go. we are not messing with it but it old buildings behind the poles stand out as true historic features of van ness rather than triing to re-create something. >> i would add to that i was in amsterdam and before that in scandinavia and several historic cities and all the cities have historic buildings and the lighterize all modern and they no way diminish, they are very simple but no way diminish the cairfckt of the settings. >> vaninosis avenue in 2017 is

radically different than van ness avenue in 1914 or 1936. there are so many new buildingsism avenue single block has a building less than 30 years old. there are beautiful biltdings there, but when we talk about the new hospital, the new hospital is a extremely modern building and has nothing to do with golden gate bridge or the world fair, the pan pacific so the street itself isn't relate today the historic street lights anymore. >> i do want to clarify for the public that is here and working oen this and also for-this is a topic that can drum up some heated discussion. we follow secretary of standards which talk about not creating false historicism and when commissioners pearlman talked

about the disney fiication that is what we are trying to avoid. we don't re-create parts of buildings to make it look historic. that is false. so, what you try to do is create something that attaches that ismore new and modern and stands out as different and to me the light poles run along the idea of secretary standards and so as commissioner wolfram was saying they have done this in amsterdam, i think it it the way to go. simple and clean and let it go away. >> we are not voting-commissioner johnck. >> i was-my first thought is this is faulsh historicism looking at the third option or second or third option, which would not meet our secretary of standards. i need clarification on the process here, so there is clearly momentum and a project that is

going on to have some new street poles and have variation here and if we can give our opinions does it mean it has to come back too? >> i guess- >> i heard the comments about slowing down the project and that kind of thing. >> the project is approved so i don't-aside from the board of sfr visors i don't understand that part of it but as approved now there doesn't-the project-the light fixtures wont come back to us as they have been approved. >> shelly [inaudible] preservation staff. it was our understanding that because this would be design change that effects the civic center landmark district that the alternative design would have to come back to you for another certificate of appropriateness. >> if they stick with the

current design that doesn't need oorths approval? >> correct. you have approved the contemporary design and so if that is maintained as part the project then they are done. >> it doesn't come bark to us. okay. >> sorry, i just wanted to add that you would have authority to recommend changes to the design for the light stanards within the landmark district if you are opposed to the alternative design. >> what i sense at least 4 members of the commissioners there is no support for modifying the current modern design. that is what i'm hearing here. commissioner hyland may express a different opinion. >> i think it might be worth stating what our preferred option was to begin with and that is restore the historic ones but since it was undeer

our purview and were not able to influence that and the current legislation to influence that decision that waents wasn't in our puvure. i know we have an assessment on the l the poles and it is probably-it is unlikely they will be restored but that is my preference as a first higher option. >> just to clarify you have purview over the poles within the district and your consideration of what historic poles to retain or not to retain within the district is the item coming up next. this is purely in the supervisors resolution for all the poles along the stretch of van nessarve avenue. any information or comments youploid at this time regarding the resolution we will forbird forward tothe spriz

supervisors office but if you dont make any recommendation or recommendation they pick a certain option we can consider that and if they do make a design change we would have to bring that back to you. at least for the area within the district. >> i would say for myself given where we are with the project i'm in support of the modern poles. >> i would agree. >> ocs pole approved. exactly. i agree. >> i think the notion that replicating a brand new pole in the spirit of the old one is false historicism and probably not in keeping with the sceert screert of interior standards. >> okay, i think that's enough adequate information. this is informational presentation so

we are not writing a letter, but i don't know if that will help to it inform your work probably just makes it more complicated than anything. >> probably. >> thank you for your presentation. >> that places on item 13 for case 2016-006104 coa for van ness brt project. this is a action item for certificate of appropriateness. >> hello commission, shelly [inaudible] again. so this is for the certificate of appropriateness to consider the construction of the shelters at the mcallister street brt station and consider the treatment of four of the historic trolley poles 2 in front of city hall and two in front of [inaudible] in the motion of approval for the

comprehensive project november 2015, these two items were pulled from the approval to allow the project team more time to work on design the shelter and the rehabilitation plan. before i jump into the rest of my presentation you are being handed a updated copy of the case report. i was made aware there was a mistake and the citation where the eir, eis mitigation measure, specifically mitigation measure mae 2. item 2 and 3. the corrected text is in the case report. i'll read it into the record. item 2, should read, assures a uniform style, character and color throughout the corridor compatible with the existing setting and item 3, retains the architectural style of the ocs support pole street light network. this language wasn't sited verbatim

in the draft motion so you don't need to make corrections if you make a motion today but wanted you to have the correct language in fronts of you. with that i want to talk about the project and staffs recommendations. the shelters will be installed at the mcallister street intersection to the norpth and south side the intersection. this design was reviewed by the architectural review committee in may of 2016 and given a favorable recommendation from the committee. specifically the preferred design opposed to the alternate design. the preferred design has fewer panels and more transparent. concern thg trolley poles for the commissions direction they are studied by a ark tegtural resource group prepared a study

looking at the four trolley pole squz their condition and making recommendations for their future treatment. there are recommendations for three separate streements. one would be cosmetic repair and restoration. the second would be replacement of the poles, which require replacement and institute cosmetic repair and third option would be fabrication of new concrete poles that salvage the cast iron elements and reinstalling them. staff is recommending approval of the work. we found the revised design of the shelters is elegant and maximum visual transparency but reducing the clutter the platform. the design is similar enough to the shelters proposed outside the historic district to maintain visual consistency while allow thg station at civic center to have

a distinth quality. staff is also recommending the trolley poles be retained as art ifacts. and 32 e options out 37 lined staff is recommending aupgds 3, fabrication of new poles. this option sacrificing the original concrete poles result in a long term treatment solution with lower maintenance needs. it will not require substantially higher financial investment and less inspection and maintenance schedule over time. the option also eliminates concerns over the structural stability of the existing poles since the historic concrete poles would be replaced. this option as i mentioned earlier retains the cast iron finiums, brackets, lume nars and bases while replacing the moreue utilitarian reinforced con

crete poles. the pole would be replaced in kine to insure proper attachment of the calvaged component. we recommend approval of the shelters and the rehabilitation of the trolley poles with the following conditions: the project sponsor shall insure compliance with maintenance recommendation provided by architectural resource group. the project sponsor shall work with the conservative fraremoval of documentation, restoration and reinstallation of cast iron trolley pole elements kwr the planning department staff review treatment mock ups and drawings and specifications prior to full scale restoration the trolley poles. with that i will turn ovto peter, the project lead. i also want to note david rustle from arg is here if you have questions about their memo and that is it. if you have any questions about process or how this relates to the previous item i

can also answer that. >> thank you. thank you mr. gubauncho, welcome back. >> thank you. been gin then with my presentation. there we go. on november 18, 2015 issued a project of appropriateness within the civic center with conditions to seek separate condition of appropriateness for appropriate design for bus sheltd shelters ativan ness and mcallister station and long term treatment plan for trolly poles two in frunlts of city hall and two in front of war memorial court. the commissioners requested a less bulk industrial design. presented 2 alternative designs on may 18, 2016. the two options considered proportions

and visual transparency in the design and include a flat roof, unified separate shelter structure. you see how the mcallister station structure is simplified. flat roof verses seismic wave roof, [inaudible] to match other plat forms. the framing is simplified and [inaudible] indicated in the iceo metric sketches. thal shelter design places information panels at either end the shelter leaving the intervening space clear. there is oorkt rendering of the preferred design. this has advantage of more visual transparency and increased space for wheelchairs. alturn

tchb design placed nrfgz panels perpendicular to the rear shelter walls at intivals. the end panels for muni information. the two center panels are proposed for possible civic senlter historic district use, graphic and maintenance by sieving center historic dist rblth if desired. here is another rendering of the alturn tchb design. this has the advantage providing protection from wind and rain and more panel spaces that could be utilized for historical displays. this third rendering of the alternative design. here is our plan view and side view oof

the boarding island with the proposed shelter design installed. i like to speak to the matter of the 4 poles. there are 2 plan frz the foyer 4 poles. cosmetic repair and restoration and fabrication of new concrete poles. cosmetic repair and restoration includes spot repairs for each of the 4 existing concrete poles. stripping of the concrete and cast iron codings and patching all sprawls holes with concrete that matches the color and textture of the existing concrete. this would not address the issue of the rust

or corrosion of the rebar within the existing concrete pole. the sealiant will be applied it is impossible to stop the rusting process that has begun. long term viability of the treatment is both temporary and speculative and certain level of public hazard will continue to remain. continued inspection is necessary to mitigate the hazard of concrete sprawl. the fab rication of new poles will replace the trolley light poles with replicas and fabicated to match the original design and include internal wiring pathways to provide power for the lights. currently the poles are shared ownership

between sfmta and pu c with adoption of either treatment plan, new owner arrangement will need to be worked out between the city agencies. or a new owner identified. at city hall preservation advisory commission hearing commissioners reaffirmed there position there is no long term treatment of the existing light poles as stated in the letter to the hpc dated november 13, 2015. the commission favors achieve thg greatest visibility of the original arthur brown designed lights in front of city hall. again, thank you for your time and happy to try to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? at this time we

will take public comment. any member wish to speak on the matter? if so please come forward. seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. back to the commission. so, this is a certificate of appropriateness. commissioner hyland. >> i have one question, was the potential reuse of the 6 good poles exploreed? is there something limiting the- >> so, early on in the project we exploreed reusing all the poles along the corridor. there are a number of difficulties. the largest one of which is the poles are not crired structurally sound any longer for continuing to support the overhead lines so since we were going continue running zero emission vehicles along van ness it means installing maintaining the existing poles and installing

new trolley poles which will add to the the street clutter. there are a number of other issues primarily focused around the fact the poles do not provide adequate street lighting, they are not tall enough >> i'm referring to the 4 that were going to be keeping or trying to keep. >> the 4 we are keeping can't be used as trolly poles, >> understand but in arg's report there are 6 poles shown in good condition. is anything exploreed uses those 6 oppose today providing 4 new ones? >> yes, sorry i misunderstand your question. currently the poles are direct in concrete foundation. there is no easy way to remove the concrete poles. we would have to cut them off and put on a new base or try to dig them out of the concrete foundation they are in so it was considered to be

basically much more cost effective and for long term maintenance much more effective to cast new concrete poles. >> thank you. >> commissioner pearlman. >> you don't have to get up, i just want to say thank you for all you have been through. it has been quite challenging this entire process and i think that the solution is really a very elegant one. i'm torn obthe preferred and alternate. i like the preferred having the intermediate panels. architectural i like the preferred version because it does disappear the renderings are effective showing how minimalist it is qu chi think

are appropriate. on the pole, this is the difference between the poles we just talked about, the ones that are new and in this case we are replicating something that we know exactly what it is and we would be replicating exactly what is there. so in this case i thij that makes a lot of sense because we replace the concrete material but we are retaining all the other elements, putting them in the exact location they are now, so this to me is a preservation solution that in a sense is just decorative, but it does kind of tell people a story about the van ness poles that were there and if there is a way and i know this was referred to there would be a way to have information there, i don't know if is a free standing plaque that could be between them that would describe this and show photos of this, i think that is a very effective way to tell that

story without enormous expense and enormous change to plans that are underway for many years. so, i congratulate you for getting this far. i know there is still more to go, but i think the ultimately the preferred design i think is the best design and the alternate for re-creating the-replacing the concrete on the poles is the correct solution. >> any other comments or a motion? >> i want to mention on the poles, i do think [inaudible] and is this the big-can this be done locally? i the fabrication of new poles. curious about the process of doing that. is this like

hugely expensive? it is a great idea, but-- >> fillmore california. >> i believe the report has cost estimates in there. >> okay. alright. good. the other question i had was on the shelter, i like the idea about the interpretive panels. i didants see a big difference between how many. >> the alternate i think had 4. >> the preferred that we are looking at is the one with the- >> just end panel s. they are at the end. the other design has them-yes. >> okay. great. i'll move staff recommendation. >> commissioner hyland >> i think architect charl i agree with commissioner