the establishment in 2012 of dedicated highly professional multicultural staff that are available to survivors each step of the way and hold the city systems accountable. the trial for my rape finally took place two months ago and i was on the stand for three hours and during questions from the defense attorney, like, why didn't you scream... >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry, your public comment is over but maybe you can finish up with your last sentence. >> okay. i come here today to just say that it's urgent that you pass the sharp ordinance today as a critical step and to keep on going. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, thank you for sharing your testimony. we're grateful for it. any other member of the public to comment on item 14? seeing none, public comment is closed. and colleagues, i would like to make a motion to accept the amendments. if we could take that without objection?

without objection. and i would like to approve and send to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. oh, i'm sorry, supervisor stefani, please. >> supervisor stefani: i wanted to thank supervisor ronen again for her leadership on this and the amazing staff and for all of the survivors who have come out to share their stories and i have been so moved by that. i have met with many and i thank them for taking time to meet with me as well and i'm very happy to support this legislation and to see it go forward. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer any remarks? all right, thank you. so, again, i make a motion to approve this legislation and send it to the full board with a positive recommendation (please stand by)

-- to point out that the amendments that you aadopted last week actually were in some part aimed at accommodating the concerns from the p.v.t.s and that is why the new category for receipts above $50 million was

included. >> supervisor cohen: all right, thank you. and public comment. i have two cards, first nima rahira and then kristen shoe macker and any other members would like to come, please step up. >> i'm here to ask you to please and respectfully to exclude private transit vehicles from this tax initiative. there's only one private transit vehicle operator and chariot inc and it's in stark contrast to what this initiative is intended to target. unlike it they are w2 and not 1099 workers. they have rejected the independent contractor model. why is this important? chariot pays a payroll tax for its drivers. the companies with independent contracted drivers do not pay a payroll tax for their drivers. and chariot drivers are also representatives of teamsters local 665 while independent contractors don't have the benefit of organizing. and chariot invests in high skills training for san

francisco residents and nearly half of chariot's drivers live in bayview and hunter's point and they pay for a point for each driver and pays an hourly wage. and unlike it they are permitted under the city. and they pay a fee for a number of vehicles permitted and that amount is $90,000 and this number will soon be $140,000. and chariot shares its data with san francisco in real-time and among other things this allows for administrative enforcement of permit requirements through citations and fines. chariot is governed by criteria to complement public transit and not to compete with public transit and chariot reduces wear and tear on greenhouse emissions. for every chariot on the road we remove 10 occupancy vehicles and this amounts to thousands of cars off the san francisco roads every week. so i want to thank you all for what you do for this city and i appreciate supervisor peskin's effort here and i appreciate your consideration.

thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, next speaker. >> i am kristin schumacher, and i wanted to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this measure but to share some of our union's concerns about what happened in the last session regarding amendments. initially this measure included an early sunset of the payroll tax exemption which was taken out. and our concern is this is a time when the city needs revenue for infrastructure and improving public services and that we shouldn't be chipping away from potential revenues in this measure and our concern is that this will continue in the future and i want to caution the board against that. and the twitter tax break had allowed the companies to avoid over $60 million in taxes and that early sunset of the provision would have meant around $7 million in additional and potential revenue.

and considering the size of the tax break thus far, and the impact that the companies like twitter have had on our city i think that would have been fair to include that early sunset. so i want to thank you for bringing this measure but caution against further amendments that would reduce its potential revenue. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. any other speakers? >> good morning, peter strauss on the board of the san francisco transit riders and the member of the transportation justice coalition and we want to thank supervisor peskin for all of the work in the past few years that led up to this. and i want to thank supervisor fewer and your colleagues on the full board for joining as co-sponsors of this measure which we strongly support. as you know the voters passed it by two-thirds in 2016. and also many people were part of the task force late last year

and early this year which supported an investment program in transportation but failed to develop a revenue source to support it. so we look to this as addressing the revenue issues as best we can. and we also recognize that we have a lot of work ahead of us and we look forward to working with you on developing the allocation strategy that needs to accompany this measure as we go forward. but today i want to thank you for your support and i urge the committee to pass this to the full board for it to pass recommendation. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for your testimony. any other members of the public that would like to testify or give public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin, is there any last-minute remarks? >> supervisor peskin: if i may i would like to address some of the comments from the members of the public. oops, i guess that my time is up. >> supervisor cohen: please, continue.

>> supervisor peskin: regard to the comments on behalf of chariot. first of all, i want to acknowledge and to appreciate the fact that chariot does indeed use union labor and is not involved in the 1099 race to the bottom. and that albeit with a few hiccups has had a relatively cooperative relationship with the san francisco m.t.a. and making sure that they don't compete against each other in ways that diminish the public transit. having said that, the fact that corporate players behave well does not mean that they should not be included in the tax. i mean, for instance, because hotels have agreements with unite here and local 2 and give those people w2s instead of 1099s doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a hotel tax to

pay for arts and other things in san francisco. so i think if we go down the road that because an organization is using our streets and chooses to have union labor that they become exempt from taxation or fees is a dangerous road to go down and i am hopeful that the provisions that we put in relative to the additional tier at $50 million, which was really designed to address some of the p.v.t. concerns would take care of those issues. with regard to the comment on behalf of the international federation of professional technical engineers, let me say that while i was not on the board when the so-called twitter tax was passed, the reality is that it sunsets in may of 2019 and it seemed to me that we would -- and, yes, i put it in

in the beginning but it was really a distraction from the main event which is the tax that is before us and for five months it did not seem to be worth putting into this. that is why i removed it. but going forward this is actually a revenue source that will be here for many years to fund transportation and other city needs, but -- and i appreciate the comments of the local 21, but i really don't think that five months of a tax that is sunsetting by its own terms is worth putting in the measure. >> supervisor cohen: all right, thank you, i appreciate that. all right, colleagues, i don't think if there's any other discussions or debate that we need to have on item 16 and i would like to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: roll call vote please. >> supervisor cohen: let's take a roll call vote.

>> clerk: supervisor fewer? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor stefani. >> no. >> clerk: two ayes and one no. >> supervisor cohen: this passes. madam clerk, the last item is 17. >> clerk: item 17, motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on november 6, 2018 and ordinance amending the business and tax regulation code to propose an additional growth receipt tax on growth receipt from cannibas business activities and the first $500,000 and exempting retail sales of medicinal cannibas. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for hearing this item today. over the past several weeks my office has spent dozens of hours speaking with advocates presenting at the cannibas tax force -- we have been on calls with the california growers association and, of course, in constant consultation with the

kocomptroller's office. and i recognize safia liter. and they are concerned about the black market thriving under the proposed structure and i understand that they feel that an additional gross receipt tax limits the quote, normalization process, end quote. but i want to let you know that i disagree and i think that we're a long way from normalization. thank you. we no -- we need better enforcement strategy against the black market. we need to fund the equity program. and above all else to make sure that it is successful. we need to give the workforce development programs that this body mandated in the process back in november unlicensed operators are a problem. but they will not go away on their own. the city needs the revenue to

normalize this industry. i'm very sympathetic to the concerns but we have a difference of opinion on how to solve this problem. so today i want to propose a compromise amendment. i am proposing that we remove the, quote, phase-in year currently scheduled for 2020. and to have a full rate effect of 2021 to be the first year of impelementation. this allows us to move forward with the plans with the city but also gives the city and the upcoming board to address the cannibas business in potential cannibas businesses in potential overhaul of the business tax program in 2020. so this allows us to move forward but also allows the industry to have some breathing room as it begins to normalize. since the ordinance does give the board the power to reduce or to delay the rates we will have the power to delay, to reduce, or otherwise change the tax rates in that particular

process. these are amendments that we passed last week. and i believe that this compromise gives everyone the space to continue this conversation in the context of the greater business tax structure without kicking the can down the road. and i'm also including an amendment that i discussed last week in committee which we are calling the wayfair amendment. i have circulated the amendments to each of you. this would impose a gross receipts tax on those businesses based outside of the city but distributing inside san francisco. it will -- it will level the playing field between the made-in-san francisco city and those operators that are operating outside of the city but conducting business inside of the city. given that we still need a bit more time to understand the legal and the fiscal implications of this particular amendment i am proposing that we duplicate the file and add this

amendment to the new version. we can take the next week to further study the issue and move forward with one of two versions next week. and before i move on i have a question for the city attorney's office. thank you, mr. gibner. on the issue that has arisen in many of my conversations, is the question of our medical cannibas exemption. and it's a very straightforward question, why does it apply only to retail? so my understanding is that it's due to state regulation. can you perhaps confirm that on the record and explain the issue a little bit to us. >> sure. deputy city attorney john gibner. the problem is that under the state scheme upstream cannibas isn't designated for medical purposes versus recreational.

and so there would not be a way currently for the city to determine whether -- whether a business is -- is -- or a particular business is working as medicinal or recreational. so there's no way for us to determine administratively whether you fit a medicinal exception because the state scheme doesn't break it down that way. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. i don't know if that was helpful or -- it wasn't hurtful but i don't know if it was necessarily bringing the clarity that i was looking for. >> okay, maybe let me try again. >> supervisor cohen: yes, try one more time. [laughter]. >> if we tax medicinal and recreational differently there would be no way for us to -- and the manufacturer says that we're

making medicinal and they tell us that and there would be no way for us to verify that they are -- they are manufacturing medicinal product as opposed to recreational because the state doesn't distinguish their business to be manufacturing for both or either. and we would have no way of auditing and verifying that they are creating medicinal product. >> supervisor cohen: that's actually very helpful. colleagues, do we have any questions or need clarification? i'll go to public comment and i have a stack of cards and recognize david goldman and then we have jessica sharp and cynthia kenness, and rob king. if i haven't called your name please come up and speak. hello. mr. goldman. >> good morning, supervisors. and thank you for making some very needed amendments to help improve the tax measure. my name is david goldman and i'm

the president of the san francisco chapter of the cannibas policy oriented club. i think that the amendments that you have made are good but i think that it needs to go further. there needs to be a way to exempt cultivators who have medical licenses, manufacturers, testers and distributors who have medical licenses from taxation. because, clearly, what will happen is that the taxes they pay will will be passed down to patients. patients are being taxed enough. since july 1st, our tax rate has gone up 50% prior to 2018. and all it has done is to led to many of my friends in the medical cannibas community going back to the black market. they got sticker shock when there was a 15% increase on january 1st and there was a 35% increase for cultivation and testing fees on july 1st. that's 50% plus the sales tax is nearly 59%.

adding this extra tax, even indirectly, will eventually trickle down and hurt patients. secondly, we think that the tax rate should be ecequal with other businesses and why should cannibas be higher than other businesses? and, finally, i believe that the money should be earmarked for helping the applicants with no-cost loans and they should also -- we should also earmark the money to help low-income medical cannibas patients in the city get their cannibas at lower or no cost. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i am jessica sharp and i'm a cannibas entrepreneur and co-founder of an organization called new era. i wanted to share today that the supervisors' pro poeing posal requires the cannibas businesses to pay a tax rate of 4 to 51 times of what other san francisco businesses pay. i'm a recovering technologists that moved into cannibas because

of the arts and because of the community that it fosters. and there are very few of us that are making the transition right now and we are actively working currently as an incubator for the equity applicants. there are people who have money and resources who are wanting to connect and work with those who do not. and we just need time and we need the ability to make that happen before the larger organizations come in and push out all of the small mom and pop and independent little companies that are starting out right now. so that's my request. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you for your statement. next speaker. >> hi, i am cynthia with new era also. we are applying as an equity incubator and have seen the different equity applicants that are in the pipeline and seeing the struggles that they've been having with regards to not having enough money to procure

real estate space or even creating a cultivation farm. and these higher gross receipt taxes are disincentivizing not only the black market cultivators that have already been out there but new ones that want to come into play. so if we're trying to not perpetuate the unregulated market these extraordinary high taxes have created disincentives to licensure. and so the licenses businesses are at a disadvantage relative to unlicensed businesses. and high local state tax in san francisco will only exacerbate the disadvantage and more and more compliant businesses will be forced to shut down. if you want to normalize with the state and to help us to normalize the cannibas industry we are passionate and compassionate professionals who love what we do for our patients and customers and neighborhoods, employees and families. we simply want to be treated

fairly and to be part of the great economy in san francisco and california. so one question that we wanted to ask was, what is the public policy justification for taxing cannibas more heavily than other industries? >> supervisor cohen: next speaker. >> hi, i am rob king, with a small license cultivation company here in san francisco. last week i spoke about our company and how our team is proud to be in san francisco. and i work with the state university research on worker health and safety and how we broadly seek to be a positive example of doing it right as indoor growers. however, i still can't wrap my head around the taxes as the last speaker said. we're still being taxed at a rate far beyond that of any other business in the city. and i haven't heard a compelling argument for that. i don't like to compare cannibas with alcohol but, indeed, the health implications for alcohol are greater and in 2010 a much

smaller proposed gross receipt tax on alcohol failed and this was earmarked to help some of those issues. this tax is not earmarked to address any of those issues and that might come up with cannibas, and the gross receipts taxes, smaller amounts for much larger industries are also receiving pushback. i think that we just heard about a 1% proposed for those making over $50 million. and the cutoff is an issue at $500,000 versus a million for other businesses. further, i'd like to put cultivation into context. an article in "forbes" called "cultivation, a raise to the bottom." this makes sense when viewed in the view of agriculture which is what we're part of. the get big or get out model still haunts our food system and making it hard for small farmers across country. small cultivators, the only kind that can exist within san francisco face a similar

outlook. if there's any hope of a model beyond the traditional legacy of get big or get out this segment of the industry especially must be supported. far from arguing for exemptions or further resources here today, i'm simply asking that we are taxed as any other small business brave enough to call san francisco home. and i thank you for your consideration. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is sarah rodriguez and i'm a small business owner of a manufacturing company here in san francisco, a cannibas manufacturing company. does this work? sfgov-tv, the overhead, please. the overhead, please. is your item on there? all right, one more time, sfgov.

oh, turn it this way? oh, okay. so it needs -- i can just raise it up. i'm -- i'm responding specifically to the memorandum that was sent out last week regarding the predicted effect of the city tax on cannibas businesses. oh, that's fine. i can just move it. on cannibas businesses. the memo did not contain references or specifically link to the data which it cites. so mainly this claimed that a percent of this tax could be absorbed by the consumer and this was asserted by the claim that the gross revenues have increased by 25% in the last year. and ignoring the fact that we just transitioned to recreation and so that 25% increase actually could be due to the number of purchases.

the study goes on to say that some amount of this could be due to increase in price. however, we have had not seen any data to substantiate this. we'd like to advocate a data-driven strategy to best serve both the city of san francisco and the emerging cannibas industry. if we represent the san francisco tax revenue by the multiplication of the tax with the price at which the good is sold and the number of purchases, -- >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i'm sorry but your time is up and maybe finish your last sentence. >> sure. my point is that demand is very high in dispensaries and lines are very long. so please go to the dispensaries. but the availability of legal goods is very, very low. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> thank you. >> presiden.>> supervisor cohent

speaker. >> good morning, supervisors and my name is kenneth michael cohen and i'd like to thank you for the progress that you have made on this issue, including the amendments that you have offered. i'd just like to say that the taxes are killing me. i am a low-income retired person and using medical cannibas and the taxes are killing me now already and i am just wondering how i'm going to be able to afford it with even additional taxes coming up soon with the gross receipts tax. i would ask you for parity in the cannibas industry with the gross receipts tax with other -- with other types of businesses in san francisco with what they're paying. and not simply to have a higher tax on cannibas simply because it's cannibas. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> sfgov-tv could i have the overhead, please. hello president cohen, supervisor fewer and supervisor stefani. thank you again for hearing this issue. i'm appreciative from the bottom of my heart for all of the progress that we've made on this issue involving tax. delaying the implementation gives us a chance to have a data-driven conversation and i'm dubious that the board of supervisors would ever choose to lower a tax. i don't know if that's going to happen or not so that's frightening for me. but for the interest of the public and everybody watching at home i'd like it talk about i.r.s. code 280e. this code denies the deduction for any expense in a business trafficking in a controlled substance. what this effectively means is that cannibas businesses can't write off their rent and electricity and they can't write off their employee cost. when you can't deduct those things you go from about 21% to a 49% tax rate. so that's just a broad

conversation of what we're already facing at the federal level. and, believe me, if i could go to washington, d.c., and i had the funds and they wanted to listen to me about this i'd talk to them but i don't think they would. so you guys, thank you for listening to me. and then so that's the federal tax burden that we're under and we face state excise taxs and we'll pay our payroll taxes and then we're now facing a gross receipts tax. and we're facing a gross receipts tax that is four to 50 times the rate of other businesseses and i really feel that the cannibas industry will be -- will have an additional tax but i would like that tax to feel fair to the industry. and i think that a double tax of the current payroll would be very fair. industry-wide that's kind of where we've all landed and we like the idea of a double tax. but the four x to the 50x, when

you look at the data it's just frightening. okay. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors, thank you for listening to our comments. i appreciate you. and the headway that you've already made, pushing it off really helps the equity applicants. i'm a equity partner and i hope to work on equity program in its early stages from a business standpoint. and just from a patient standpoint and an activist i want to remind you guys that alcohol and cigarettes kill people every day. cannibas doesn't kill people and there is no death toll for cannibas so there should be no death toll on cannibas because there's no death toll from can bass. so a lot of the reasons that we tax or have extra taxes on these industries is because they are,

you know, they kill people and they're problematic. whereas this is the opposite, and we heal patients. i know personally of hundreds of patients that have been healed by cannibas through cancer, autism, child leukemia, a number of different diseases that modern medicine haven't been able to help with. and then also if we want to bring in manufacturers and have distribution in san francisco, i mean, we won't be competitive if the tax is too high with other places which will force the retailer to look outside of san francisco which will squeeze out any taxes from manufacturing and distribution and so on and so forth. because of the real estate in general and how expensive it is to either find real estate, pay for real estate and do business in san francisco. and so if there is a tax i would say that it should go directly to the equity incubator program

or something to help the equity applicants continue to flourish because there will be that tax so if the tax is put into a program to to help it could counter. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. jim lazarus, the san francisco chamber of commerce and i appreciate the amendments made and what is pending before you today. i think that a deferral of any tax collections is the right thing to do. we have to go back to gross receipts generally and the ordinance from 2012 needs to be amended. you have heard me say we have a tale of a payroll tax next year of .5% and we base this on $410 million of business taxes in 2007 -- pardon me, 2011 and it's now $800 million of business taxes collected. based on that payroll growth. so you're getting a combination of gross receipts and payroll tax that t continues.

our problem is with any disparaging rates that target businesses individually rather than as a whole. our problem with these rates is that as we found around the state of california that they're not collecting the revenue because high rates are continuing an underground cannibas economy. and we need to get tax rates correct and we need to do that in conformity with the industry that you're trying to regulate. so we think that it's a step in the right direction. we believe that the rates should be closer to the rates paid of any retail, any wholesale, any manufacturerring, and that this industry shouldn't be unfairly targeted. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, next speaker. >> you know, this is an example of the board being underminded by statements like this. i made several demonstrations pertaining to taxes of twitter and five other high-tech companies. i have demonstrated where

twitter has gotten free money pertaining to payroll taxes at a minimum of $217 billion. and this is a false narrative where you do not collect payroll taxes that you create jobs and that you making revenue for the city. twitter and other high-tech companies is laughing at you. everybody is paying payroll taxes but them. the whole city employees are paying payroll taxes except them. so that's a false narrative. and again as far as taxing the cannibas and everything that is concerned, how come these type of rules and regulations is not being applied to twitter? you need to audit your tax business with twitter and i've already demonstrated a graph there earlier this week on taxes. it's showing that payroll taxes has trickled down on the graph and not creating revenue for the city. and i want to add to you off

topic here that i had a demonstration last night before the police commission pertaining to sexual assault and when you get time i would like you to check out that demonstration. my main issue was to catch the rapist in these cold case files and not just get a bunch of rules and regulations to administrate the treatment of the victims which is good too. but i want to catch the rapists who are floating in the city and county of san francisco and throughout the jurisdiction of the bay area. >> well, cigarettes are taxed heavily and alcohol is taxed heavily and so should marijuana be and, frankly, alcohol is not taxed enough. also, unfortunately, the legalization of marijuana appears to have encouraged market diversification with growers in mexico and turning to

poppies and pharmaceuticals and turning towards mass manufacturer of opioids. so i had hope that the legalization of marijuana might push out prozac and valium but it doesn't look like that happened. so i -- also san francisco has an interest in the lawsuit against pharmaceutical and i hope and assume that you do. >> supervisor cohen: any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item? all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. all right, colleagues, there's a couple actions that we need to take. first i'd like to make a motion to accept the amendment removing the 2020 tax implementation date. may i -- yes, all right, seconded by supervisor fewer. and i can take that without objection. thank you. and i'd like to make a motion to duplicate the file and i'll take that without objection. thank you.

and i'd like to amend the new file with the wayfair amendment, okay, without objection, thank you. and then, colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions or comments before we take our final vote? supervisor stefani or fewer? >> we are required to continue this item to the next meeting. >> supervisor cohen: i will make a motion to continue to july 26th so we can continue the conversation. okay. all right, well, then i'll make a motion to continue one week to july 26th so we can continue the discussion. >> clerk: would you like to consider both files? >> supervisor cohen: yes, continue both files and i'll take that without objection. thank you. madam clerk, any other business before us. >> clerk: no further business. >> supervisor cohen: okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. thank you. (♪)

>> good morning, everyone and thank you for coming my name is rosy form treasurer of the united states and the form of empowerment 2020. >> yeah. >> empowerment 2020 is an initiative to durnl encourage a million women we 2020 to go in leaders positions it is request quality day and the one hundred

year of the 19 amendment that give woman the right to vote joining me on stage a margo the ceo of ma tell. >> (clapping.) >> 74 percent have been girls in middle school express interest in office only girls are expressing an interest in computer science 50 percent less graduating are for girls than thirty years ago i've spent 8 years of the treasurer of the united states to have a portrait on the photo in our public engagement process there were one hundred of women overlooked in the history of our country many tops will be discussed and empowerment 2020 conference everything there empowering young women and girls to be the

future leader to encourage women to get into stem education and getting into nasa and google and making sure that they are part of tech economy. >> the second part of empowerment 2020 is women money and power to put women in so and so positions for the corporate fleet and elected office the third part of empowerment 2020 are the conferences their action oriented women have flatlined at 20 percent on that percentage one and 20 percent women a in congress that is stagnated if we get up to thirty percent fabulous 80 percent would be amazing that conversation is equality will be something we're used to as pair the culture i'd like to that that will be done in 2020 but if

>> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission joint meeting between civic design committee of the arts commission and historic preservation commission. the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence any mobile devices that may sound during the hearing. when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone. if you care so, speak drinkly into the microphone. roll call for the preservation commission. [roll call] we expect commissioner johns to be absent. >> for civic design review committee. [roll call]

we have a quorum of that committee. >> great. so the first item up on your agenda is special calendar item number 1, case 2017-009220ptacoa-02. san francisco public works and jcdecaux replacement of public toilets and kiosks. >> commissioner wolfram: before we start, welcome to the civic design committee. >> good afternoon. the item before you is review and comment for the replacement of public toilets and kiosks in the public right-of-way and lots on rec and park department. the project proposes to remove and replace 25 public toilets and 114 kiosks located throughout san francisco. out of the total, six public

toilets and 34 kiosks are within the boundaries of article 10 and 11 landmarks, landmark districts, and conversation districts, as outlined in your packet. the previous design was reviewed and approved by the arts commission on november 6, 2017. at its december 6, 2017, meeting, architect ual review provided comments. meeting notes are in your packets the a.r.c. identified three issues for the project to address. form and masting, contextural relationship and civic center, coit tower and washington square park. following the public hearing, the proposal was redesigned.

the redesign presented today was selected through an invite-only competition, which the project sponsor will explain in a more detailed presentation. the department believes the revised design addresses the comments of the a.r.c. and seeks the advice of the commission regarding the compatibility of design with secretary standards. staff has provided recommendations for commissioners' review and comment and comments at the a.r.c. hearing. in brief, these recommendations include, overall relationship with the surroundings, form and massing, and recommendations on materials and color the department is requesting commission's advice regarding ex-terror -- exterior surface and colors. the project sponsor team has prepared a more detailed presentation. i would like to in rope to deuce

beth rubenstein from public works. i'm available for any questions. this concludes my presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm beth rubenstein, special projects s.f. public works and i'm thrilled to are here at such an historic joint hearing. we appreciate this is the first joint hearing and we're your first and only item. thank you so much for coming together. i will give you an overview of the project and then you will hear from jcdecaux and then the architects on the project. i look forward to our conversation. it's wonderful to have all of you together so we can have a joint conversation. so for over 20 years, the city of san francisco has had a very productive partnership with jcdecaux. as you recall, in the 1990s, we entered into a 20-year contract

with jcdecaux to supply public toilets for the city, in exchange for allowing them to have advertising income with 114 kiosks they would design, fabricate, install and maintain, daily maintain, 25 public toilets. this was the first project they did in the nation, our nation, and it was quite radical. there was a lot of pushback, if you recall. the idea of public toilets. but here we are 20 plus years later and they're a very important part of our city landscape and our, i think, civic culture, actually, and our belief and what we need for street furnishings to make it an inclusive city, inclusive and supportive city. and so about two years ago, public works put out an r.f.p. for a new contract as the old one was expiring and jcdecaux won the contract again. and, as you recall, as natalia

mentioned, last year, jcdecaux came before the commissions with an initial design. as natalia mentioned, arts commission approved the design around it began to go through the historic preservation commission. we got a good amount of feedback from the arts commission and architectural review committee. two of the map points public works heard from your commissions, board of supervisors and community members, we got feedback from design parameters, which i will talk about. and also, a lack of community process, though the designs wept through your commissions. and we had very little public participation. there was a concern. at the beginning of this calendar year, public works looked at the project and tried to address the concerns.

when jcdecaux went through the process, they were looking for a design that was background, quoting the last year's report, didn't want to attract attention to itself. when public works and communities looked at that, we decided it was reallial missed opportunity to think about these important street furnishings in that regard. instead of being background and trying not to call attention -- frankly, there's 25 plus 114, so they're very present. we could make them real amenities to the city, not only in terms of toilets and that program, but aesthetics. and in terms of being part of a city, a city design. we're also seeing new civic structures like the cafe kiosks, for the cafe, and the new bart portals on market street. couldn't the jcdecaux toilets

and kiosks be part of modern street furnishings? it's a long-term contract, so we want it to be forward-thinking, unique, innovative. so we took a different perspective on the design parameters. we designed a community process where we felt engaged and brought us the broadest, most diverse group of people. in partnership, jcdecaux and public works entered into -- this was in march, so not too long ago. it's been a quick winter and spring, entered into a streamline, invitation-only design competition. as the finalists, the winner, would be decided by jcdecaux. after extensive outreach in the field and inhouse and with you commissioners, we came up with

12 industrial architectural design firms, all locally based, top of their field in the area, and also a diverse group. so there were many, large, in that they were small. there were many m.b.e. and w.e.b. firms in the mix. we also came up with a jury of 12, which half were city staff. one of the things that's been really important to us in this process is to work collaboratively with the other city agencies that are part of this process, that should be part of the process. like your two bodies, we wanted to work with the arts and historic preservation. we have dan hodath from the port, which has been very important, and rec and park, our main city partners. half the jury was city staff and the other were outside experts, again, locally based architects

who had been recommended way their peers. the process was really important to us, that the process was fair. and because of that, it was completely blind. so the participants didn't know the jury and vice versa. the proposals and the three finalists received an hon honorariam. they had a board to present. we wanted to use it for preservation. with the three finalists, we went to each of them and said, this is why we love the project. in each case, it didn't quite match the design parameters. so we asked them to return with a second board that was closer. with the three boards, we went

on a community outreach campaign. i would say that during that process, i spent a good amount of time reaching out to community groups across the city as well as c.b.d.s, just to let them know our process and say, hey, this project is back on-line. this is what we're doing. spent a lot of time doing that community outreach. with the three finalists boards, we did a press release. we got a lot of press from "the chronicle," "the examiner." we did an on-line survey, based on the san francisco arts commission survey model, which we really liked. and then we did an exhibition at the san francisco main library and also the heart of the city farmers market talking to people. it was great to hear how many people care about architecture. as an architect, that's always heartwarming. we got over 200 responses, individual responses, about the

design from both the oregn-line surveys and these, and we reached out to you to give you an update on the process and we talked to city staff and community groups. it was the most innovative, aspirational, and wanted to represent us 20 years out. it's projects that will be on our city streets for 15, 20 years, at least. the ones we have now, it's been 22, 23 years. the responses were from 20 different zip codes. so it was a diverse mix. we heard that it was clean,

safe, inviting, cultural, classic, and "wraps fluid beauty with function." so we're really happy to present the design to you and get your comments. i will introduce francois from jcdecaux, who has been an important city partner. this contract has been important to the city. through the funding it provides the new toilets and the staffing, so we're really happy about this partnership. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you, beth, for the introduction. we are very happy and pleased to

be back with you. as a company, we've been at the fore front of innovation in the public space. we think it's important to take care of it. over the last years, 20 years, 40 years, things have changed. we see a lot of demand coming from the public. it is better bottom up than top down. we have to adapt. we have to change. i think it's all of us that are trying to make the city a better place and how can we achieve that? our expertise