referred to throughout the paper work when i was brought into this last week. he was familiar with the buyers coming in and thought it was a good idea to have this meeting and request a continuance. i understand he conveyed that to his client to deny the continuance and i told him i would make that request to you, which i did. there is nothing sexist about that. my practice is to work with the consultants or attorneys in the case. the request that their requesters are bringing beyond by the initial request was including to tear up the foundations accord, i would just request caution the commission that you should consult with an engineer before earning that. thank you. that could be highly problematic. the foundations are supporting the neighbor's property right now. i suggest speaking with a

qualified geotechnical and structural engineer. i do want to show photos briefly on the overhead. this is essentially the pre-existing envelope of the property. this is the subject site up here. uphill d.r. and downhill d.r. here you can see the upper lev level. this is what was done. these dormers here, at this is what is being proposed in the current permit as supported by and in some ways force by planning. we are willing to give up these dormers if we choose but i understand planning is consistent with the standards and advisable. that parking space is slated to go here and we are having just happy to put the cost in. thank you very much.

>> vice-president melgar: ok. did you want to go first? >> commissioner richards: i'm the only one on the role. the case we had last week is fresh in my mind and i think this commission put his foot down with regard to this kind of behaviour. the fact there is a new team and buyer does not obligate the need what is in front of us. that is speculation whether the sale goes through. i guess the question i have for the requesters are before the house is sold in november of 2015 2015, did the existing e have any problems, drainage, flooding back with your house. please respond. >> yes. that is a very good question. the prior owner of the house is jesse garcia. he died in his eighties.

we have lived at this property, you know, between us 25 and almost 30 years. we had a great relationship with him. so there were problems because he was elderly and the house floods. it is engineered as such as the water would flood from his house right into our downstairs. so we try to figure out ways between us to deal with these drainage issues. what we did when the buyers showed up, we said look, there are these massive drainage problems. we have to address these. this is how all of this started. it did exist. we did remedial efforts without the prior neighbors and before their staff. and this is what we brought to him. i want to correct a statement that mr patterson made. the contractor who has been a part of this project from the beginning is still a part of this. he was involved in these negotiations up until a few

months ago. you know, it is not clear that there is a new routine here -- new team here. >> commissioner richards: by new team i'm a new buyer. the question i have is, it was or anything done to the house currently, i.e. the new foundation, to prevented any of these problems that you had prior to the new owner taking over? >> commissioner richards: you had drainage problems and a new foundation was poured. was there still water coming in? >> let's see. yes. this is my husband. >> we have a brand-new foundation on that side of the house. we finally had to put in and install a new foundation. at this point, this is the first season. as the first season, it is good. i do not know what will happen next year. >> and the other thing is, they directed, and the process of preparing the house, they put up

an un- footed concrete barrier and a fence above it so we don't know -- they have done nothing to remediate it. the plan does not include that remediation character that has been part of our problem all the way along. >> thethey try to do something about it but part of the agreement that we had entered into was to try to monitor that situation and validate it. that was unable to happen because of the blitzkrieg that happened in the pouring of the foundation on the thanksgiving weekend. >> thank you. >> in regard to my property, there were no cross property problems involved between myself, m my husband and jesse garcia. they did not exist. >> ok. i am coming back to what we did last week with the commissioner fontenot being here. i think, with the established

pattern of abuse of the permit process, the legal system and the neighbors, i think doing anything differently than we did last week would be condoning this kind of behaviour, i am travelling towards what we did on 214 states last week which is put the house back the way it was before all of this legal work was done. make sure that it is code compliant and habitable so gets a cfc and let the new owner start fresh and negotiate with the neighbors with what they want to do to improve the property. that is where i am headed. >> this is a flashback from last week. i wanted to make a couple of points. i'm repeating myself from last week but a couple of commissioners weren't here. it dawned on something that clarifies a lot of things for me. i have spent a couple of decades working in my industry, construction industry and i

spent 14 years out in the field working with the tools and then also estimating the project management. if i learned anything in those years it was that the blueprints are the absolute -- absolute bible. you do not ever install more work or do more work than are on the prince. you are not getting paid to do it. whether you have the tools or you are in the office telling your guys in the field what to do, you never ever exceed the scope because you are not getting paid for it. so we are not ever showing up here with our minds made up and trying to penalize and enforce violations. but there comes a point in time when it is obvious that the owner has literally directed people to do so. i see the architects and the design team and i understand they are a local company and they are not to blame for this. this is the owner. like we did last week, we almost have no other choice but to follow through with something

similar to what we did seven days ago. >> vice-president melgar: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i want to completely with agree with my fellow commissioners. i think in looking at the history of this property, it is clear, without a doubt that the owner and all associated parties knew what they were doing. and that the fault really does lie with the owner. and, you know, ultimately, i think just looking even at the listing of this property when it was bought, there was a potential here to make a great home that a family could live in. it is clear that was never the intent. i would fully support taking this house back to its original footprint before any other action is moved forward. >> vice-president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: except for an address, i think this

particular hearing sounds like a 214 state street. the only person who is missing is mr o'riordan. the evidence that was presented in short form here clearly speaks to the very same type of omissions that we heard at that time. i could not agree more with what my fellow commissioners had sa said. i believe in order to be consistent and send the correct message that we need to stand strongly with a similar decision that we made last week. >> -- >> vice-president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i moved to take d.r. and instruct the owner to put the house back exactly as it was and before november 6, 2015. it has to be absolutely code compliant and habitable. it would need a certificate of final completion and occupancy.

i think that is the right answer here. >> vice-president melgar: second. did you want to say something? >> just for some clarification. so the rear bumper out of the property was nonconforming and not permi permitted previously. the existing conditions at the time of the sale. so the current footprint of the actual bump out is shown on the plans right now and it reflects a code compliant element of the building. it was previously there. they are retaining some of the walls and there is a lot of dry rot at that portion. i wanted to clarify if that can be retained. i assume we are speaking about preserving the envelope of the building. so the roofline and no dormers. i just want to make sure that our report is clear. >> no dormers. there is extensive record that was listed by a real estate

company. i am sure there are plans that exist prior to him taking over. i don't know how my fellow commissioners feel, you know, we are asking to take the building back and there was unpermitted work prior to him purchasing the building which resulted in some noncode compliant bump ops in the back, you know, to me it means exactly that. i don't want to penalize him. it is what it is. if it is not compliant, the zoning administrator would have to rule on that. they would be required to retain a variance to legalize the replacement of the noncompliant portion of the building which they took down without benefits of permit. >> it is already gone. they did not have a permit to remove the noncompliant portion. they have lost that. >> i would recommend that we, if it is down, it is gone. they are not allowed to restore

any noncompliant portions could we also have clarification as to the parking? at the curb cut had and it will be existing for some time. the plants do not show an existing parking spots. but what is the commission's desire for the parking? >> if it was historic and they are, there is a curb cut and it indicates there was an ability to pull a car in and out. >> was actually functional? i don't know if the neighbors can act speak to this. >> that particular -- we have the same similar type of situation and our properties right next to it. so we have never been able to use that as a hardcourt. he never used it as a card poor carport. those are originally from the 18 eighties. that was a pathway to the back with the carriages and the horses. there is a trough that my neighbor has next-door. this was never used --

>> commissioner richards: i had the real estate listing here. i don't believe that it had a garage or a parking space. it was sold -- i don't believe that it showed a parking space. >> yes. there was never one. that was the entrance to the lower unit. >> commissioner richards: i would just omit that as well. no parking space. >> vice-president melgar: i'm sorry. i'm confused. commissioner johnson, did you have further comment? >> commissioner johnson: no. >> vice-president melgar: ok. i will just say, i am actually very happy that the city attorney is finally dealing with a serial offender. you know, i think this is the greatest stuff that exacerbates our housing shortage, you know, this is, you know, and egregious case. i also think it is particularly ridiculous to blame the workers.

blame the contractors who are helping you make an outrageous profit. with that, is everything clear? >> i want to make sure we have everything clear. i will ask staff to repent -- repeat back t in my understandig of the commission's motion. >> ok. we have a motion to retain the proposed footprints of the building and it came to my attention that that was removed due to a notice of correction from d.b.i. i wanted to make sure that that remains in place and we would not want them to restore --'s p1 the house existed before except for the bump out which was conforming. the bump out was nonconforming. so the bump out is gone. they would build the back of the building within the required rear yard and construct the

house back as it was with the peaked roof. everything the same. hopefully new shingles and new paint job. it has to be habitable and cannot be a sham reconstruction. somebody could move in tomorrow once it is completed with a new parking space. >> vice-president melgar: ok. >> vice-president melgar: ok, i think we are done. >> clerk: we will call the question now. on the motion to take d.r. -- >> commissioner moore: one second. the planner used to the word proposed footprints. i think what you are saying, if you want to go back to the original -- >> commissioner richards: november 5th 2018. they would need the bump out. the clarify for those records too. it seems, based upon information here from the applicants they

received a correction notice from the department of building inspection related to the structure at the rear. we can look into this further, but in any event, the structure was removed. there is no permit or that. in any event, to replace it, they would need a variance but i am hearing the commission considering all of these facts would like it to be in the current compliant. they would not like any noncompliant portions of the building to be reconstructed. no parking space. it has to be habitable. it has to be issued and everything up to code. ok? on that motion, which was recommended by commissioner richards and seconded by commissioner melgar. [roll call] that motion passes to take d.r. 6-0. and that was our last agenda item.

>> vice-president melgar: meeting is adjourned. m>> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that

we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we

worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken swing set and half of -- for

me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here.

>> 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 is how do we connect services to the public. our clients are the city, but the users are the citizens or the visitors. so we think a lot about it. and we are not selling the services. we keep the maintenance. we are operators. so whatever is done on day one, we have to make sure that it would be functional, clean, something we can maintain in year two, year 10, whatever. as a company and with all our team around the country and the world, it's always very complex

between what you can see the first time and you would like and what can be built and maintained? so we have to take care of these from top to bottom over the years. so that's something that is thinking about it, back and forth, back and forth. but we're about to achieve it in san francisco for the last 20 plus years. the toilets have been walking nonstop for 20 years, 25 toilets, every single day. over the last 12 months, 800,000 people have used the bathrooms in san francisco. so more than the population of the city. innovation, the capital of innovation, in digital world, but we're living in the physical world and we believe that innovation is about technology,

data, digital, and we are big into it, but innovation is also social innovation. and that's what san francisco bought with the toilets in the last two years, thanks to public works with the attendant. so now we have attendants through a social program. they're controlling who is using the bathrooms and who can go in and that's been a change. sometimes some corners in the city are a little bit rough, socially challenging. and it doesn't matter what you have as a structure. if you don't have that, you need

that for people visiting especially to have a clean, safe place. so that social innovation. and then innovation in the process. and that's what we've been doing the last four, five months, when you ask us to go back and think again. so we went back to the drawing board and went through a process involving the commission at the same time, working with public works, going through the custom design and making progress. what we'll show you today is two models of public toilets and three models of kiosk. so we are far along on the publ public toilets. we see there is some engineering

to do, but we're close to it. on the kiosk, we have three kios kiosks. we had a big discussion about the -- this is still something that we're working on. so we'll show you some options that are more viable than the others. there is still a lot of engineering to be done. we don't want to mislead the city and the commission, the two commissions, i should say, but telling you it's a beautiful design, but three months down the road come back and say, we have to change the design. to my earlier comment, everything has to be tight, the usefulness of the service. so that's my presentation. will be happy to answer any questions. thank you, again, for your time

and consideration. >> commissioner wolfram: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm bill cates from smith group and i will walk you through the thought process from the original concept design and the process that beth outlined and bring you through that and talk about where we're at with these. as francois mentioned, it's the early stages, so we're engineering some of them. and some elements are further along than others and i will explain those as we go forward. with that, i will switch to this microphone? no? >> you can. we'll pick it up. >> can you hear me? >> yep. >> great. it's a rendering of the single restroom kiosk on market street. we'll get back to that image in a minute. just want to start with the

initial questions and concepts that we dealt with to come up with the solution in the office. and really we wanted to create a singular concept object that could deal with the varied neighborhoods in san francisco. it's happening in different locations in the city. our solution was to design transformative designs that had variations. you will see that when i get to them in a minute, so in some locations, the toilet kiosk can look one way and then adapt to the neighborhoods themselves. how can the kiosks reflect the rich history of the city while expressing concepts of technology and looking towards the future. our solution for that was a sculptural solution that merges nature and technology. we really feel that this is in many ways what asan francisco i all about, embracing our

environment, but embracing what is around us and being respectful of our history. we hope that the kiosks and toilets represent that. the third element, we want to create a design that's complex in its concept, but simple in terms of its maintenance and replacement and repair as necessary. our solution was to create a kit with the smallest amount of pieces as necessary. if something is destroyed or vandalized, it can be easily replaced over time. so the goal, as francois mentioned, to keep them running, as they have in the past. our team and our office, it's not just me and tyler who is with me, who designed this. it was a large group of people with all kinds of crazy, diverse ideas that have come together.

it's been a community design. equally important is that all of those people live in the city themselves and have been using and seeing and admiring these kiosks and what they can accomplish for the city. this image here, represents the board that we put together. this is the second-round board, that beth mentioned, that had all of our concepts and ideas combined. and i will break that out in the next couple of images to talk about the concepts and how they relate to the three questions that we were trying to answer during the process. there is a lot of collaborative work here and one of the steps of the process was a visit from both beth and francois in our office where the team came in and showed the sketches and concepts that led to the design itself and inspired by many different things, whether it's art, architecture, the way items are drawn, the way that water can be reused in the

relationship and in the growing landscape. so here you see, for example, the notion that i mentioned about variations in the city. on the left, you see the simple kiosk. as you look on the right, some have planting on top. some have trees adjacent. this was an ideas competition and we wanted to bring that home and collectively with these plus the kiosk create a story about the city and about sustainability. objects are meant to be sculptural for many reasons. one of them was to minimize their presence. in some cases, they bend in the middle to reduce the massing of them. also reflectivity.

the more curves and different shapes they are on the outside and the changing, it reflects different angles of what is happening around the city. so it's not a mirrored presence. you walk up and see your full reflection. the goal is that it abstracts it as an art piece itself. we're still looking at the exact nature of exterior material, texture and reflectivity. we'll work with that as we go forward in the process. constructability, as i mentioned, obviously working closely with francois and jcdecaux to build something that is buildable, maintainable, flexible. they're in the street. we understand the environment and understand the abuse of things that they will get. we want to be sure that they hold up. and optimizing the size and make

sure that a panel can be rotated, placed on the top, and the supply of replacement pieces can be as limited as possible. that was the initial concept. as we get into the parts and pieces, we're dealing with the realities of that and determining the parts and pieces to make them as maintainable as possible. in terms of materiality, there are many items in this that are really responses to maintainabili maintainability. we want it to be very strong as it touches the sidewalk and ground. and the areas that people reach and touch has different aspects of it. and above one's head, that can be a different concept. at the same time, being smart about the durability of them

from the ground up. we want to go through and start with the public toilets and work our way to the kiosks. the public toilets are the item we started with first in terms of the engineering process. and we're pretty far along with that. for memory's sake, to the right, represents the drawings of the existing restroom kiosks and then some photos of what they look like. here's some drawings that show you the single unit kiosk. there's a single toilet restroom kiosk and there's a double. there are no doubles out there now. that is being added to the mix in this process. here to the right, you see the elevations. the smaller elevation all the way to the right and then adjacent to that, the straight-on elevation of the long side. below it, you can see the plan. and the undulating shape that

wraps around that and to the left, quick, early rendering studies. i will click it and there's a change at the top. in the proper locations, there could be landscape on top of those. we've been looking at adding a skylight to the top of these so when you are inside, you get more natural light and it's less cavernous. so we want to make them a nice -- continue to develop the experience inside and make it a nicer experience. here's the double toilet solution. at the bottom right, you can see a plan at that. one is a.d.a. accessible and the other is not. it's a wider unit, but still has the same curves and shape for

the most part as the single toilet. also, the notion of having the skylight and planting at the top is both of those. so we're working on the exact details of these. we've looked at the curvature and relation to a.d.a. and people walking by, developing the signage and integrating it and making sure that the functional elements are integrated with the form, so it's a seamless process. those things we're still working on. all the things that you would expect to happen here, but still maintaining the initial concept and shape of the project. here's a rendering just done showing the single toilet and how it would look on market street. with that, i will hop over to the kiosks. as francois mentioned, we're

really in the thick of developing these. it's a much earlier phase. there are three types of kiosks on the street. there's the retail version, which opens up. there's the advertising kiosk that just has print ads on them. the future version of those will have the ability to have l.e.d. electronic images. and the third, one that is an interactive kiosk with the ability for touch screen interactions. the bottom image you see, represents the existing interactive and the one above that represents the current retail version. right now, you see the existing retail version and then we have three different solutions that we're still developing. there are different variations that affect the size or circumference or width of these on the sidewalk.

we're dealing with the mechanisms inside and the addition of the l.e.d. screens, it involves more meat inside, for lack of a better word, to make sure that they're easy to open and maintain and adjust during the process. all of these are important to consider as we develop the design. also, we're charged with placing these on the existing foundations. so getting that to work, as you can obviously tell, there's a round foundation with the existing kiosks and we have a three-sided kiosk that will take its place. so it's the age old, triangular peg in a round hole situation that we're dealing with. we're working to develop that, that has tied into the toilets the same, reflective material, same base at the bottom and then the curvature that will have a relationship to those.

so it really is a family of elements on the street that tie into the development of these amenities in the city. the next three, and it's one of those things, where it's hard to tell the difference, but we're dealing with the subtleties of the first one here, to the next one of dealing with the curvature of the corners of the elements, keeping them as tight and small as possible, understanding that every inch on the sidewalk is sacred and used by many different people and we want to make sure that these live up to that. there are slight variations in curvature and the relationship of top to bottom that we'll continue to develop as we move forward. with that, i don't know if there is something else you want to say, but we can open it up for discussion. >> commissioner wolfram: thank you very much. let's start with public comment,

so we can get that -- any comments from the public? if any member of the public wishes to speak, you will have 3 minutes and there's a 30-second warning buzzer before your time is up. >> thank you very much. a couple of things -- thank you very much. i'm stan hayes and i'm co-chair of zoning and planning for hill dwellers. this is very important. it's a once in a generation decision. the choice of the next design, you can frame our perception of it for the next 20 years. and, like you, we want these designs to be a success. for that to happen, there are several criteria 7 -- of design. it needs to evoke the history of

san francisco. it needs to reinforce location context. it needs to improve on current designs and not be arguably worse. it should not be hard-edged and too urbanized or so generic at its core that it could be anywhere. and we think that the design before you as it currently sits does not meet these criteria adequately, especially in areas that are of historic and heritage context like coit tower and washington square and north beach, which is why we urge you to further expand your design choices to keep looking. and if you feel it's necessary to go back to the drawing board and rethink the process a little bit, maybe even to reconsider, a fresh version of designs that are currently used. and we understand that while those toilets and kiosks are

aging and many of them in need of repair, their design successfully evokes a sense of san francisco's history and heritage. perhaps refurbishment is needed and not replacement. in any event, we hope that you will consider this issue, continue to find variations on what you've got before you and perhaps look even further out and define designs that are not even on the table at this point. thank you very much and good luck. >> commissioner wolfram: thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners, i only have the ability for members of my commission to do requests to speak, so i'm not sure how we'll organize this in an orderly fashion. normally we push our buttons and i call members in order and we don't talk over each other.

>> how about we raise hands and arms? >> commissioner wolfram: that will work. first of all, opening comments, i'm very thankful to the city and jcdecaux for organizing this competition. we're thrilled to see the design thinking that's gun to date. i think it's been a really great process that you have taken so seriously. commissioner johnck. yoip>> justin: -->> commissioner johnck: i am excited to have this discussion. i want to thank you for your efforts and i think it's been a success story. i remember the brouhaha over the idea of having public toilets on the street. and i will say -- and this leads to my question and my interest in durability. looking at the aesthetics and the design features, that's

certainly of interest, but i'm interested in the durability and the material aspect of it, of the selection. and this leads me to, as i say, the successful continuance of the toilets and the kiosks on the streets. and i guess my question -- my first question is, i haven't seen any graffiti or any exterior damage to the assemblage. [inaudible] >> jcdecaux maintains them. >> commissioner johnck: to me, i like the current design. it's historic. so as we -- if we move away from that, i would be interested in either hearing more about how much damage that you've had to

correct on the exterior, versus what i'm worried about, seeing this material here and worrying about graffiti and vandalism. so that's the tenor of my comments. >> commissioner wolfram: maybe you can address that question. >> again, francois with jcdecaux. thank you for the comments and the question. when we build and we engineer, it's done for maintenance and future use. in san francisco, we have a dedicated team working seven days a week, two shifts, and we have graffiti and vandalism, but we respond pretty fast, and maybe that's why you don't see it. [laughter] >> commissioner johnck: okay. well -- >> commissioner wolfram: doing a good job. >> it's a lot of work. we spend a lot of time.

it's like any organization, it's operations, so you train your team and your supervisors. you have me running around and taking pictures and calling the office. that's something that we do all the time, seven days a week. so if the unit is fairly well built and you have the processes in place, so you are able to respond very fast. two weeks ago, a car drove into the case of a kiosk. the base is cast iron, so it's impossible to mold the cast iron overnight. but we have spare parts in the warehouse for 20 years. that was only two weeks ago. at fisherman's wharf, somebody lit a fire inside the unit. it's a condition