based on the seven and ten year terms, the annual guarantee to rent to the airport would be $4 million. summarized on page 11 on the report. the airport does expect to get the higher percentage grant rather than the annual guarantee we recommends approval of both of those resolutions. the third one, item 12 is a contribution of $6.2 million from united airlines towards the cost of the generator and air conditioning unit. the budget for this is dependent -- is $25 million. we summarize it on page 14. the sources of funds for the project include a 10 million-dollar grant from the federal aviation administration. the airlines contribution of $6.2 million and then the airport revenue bonds would contribute $8 million. in terms of the airport revenue bonds, these are paid back through charges to the airline through the lease and use agreement and we recommend

approval. >> supervisor cohen: thank you i have a question. with the contract as it relates to item 12, the contract with united would pay for 25% of the total cost of the capital project. who is paying the other outstanding 75%? >> the other 75% is what the f8 dutch faa would give us an grant funding and then the airport's contribution is a .1 -- is 8.1 set million dollars. they equal that $25 million in the total project cost. >> thank you. what i would like to do is go to public comment on items 10-12. if there is a member of the public who would like to come and talk on these items, you are welcome. public, disclosed. all right. -- public comment is closed. thank you. how about this. we approve all three items with a positive recommendation and scent to the full board. thank you. we will do that without objection. moving on. item 13 please. >> ice-whether 13 is resolution of the mental health services

act annual year update. >> supervisor cohen: all right this is an annual update of our progress on the mental health services act. welcome back. this particular act garners the state funding for a variety of county level mental health care programs. the floor is yours. welcome. we look forward to your presentation. >> thank you. good morning. i oversee the mental health services act program for san francisco. to give a brief overview of the updates, i put together a powerpoint presentation. the mental health services act as a state program. it was created in 2005. it is designed to support the transformation of the mental health system to address needs

and is based on community collaboration. i know we are required to provide an update to the plan and for this annual update, we have seen 18 community firms and individuals who participated in them. we held a public hearing of the mental health board. currently we are seeking approval from this body to approve a resolution authorizing the adduction of the mental health services act 18-19 update this slide shows a summary of the revenue and expenditures over time. this is a 12 year span. blue is the revenues and purple is the expenditures. as you can see, the revenue is very volatile. we have been able to expend violent -- volatility of the revenue.

it sets limits for the amount you can have an end an economic downturn. that amount is approximately $7.7 million. as of june of 2018, we are able to admit to that mark. >> supervisor cohen: just to interrupt, i want to make sure i heard you correctly pick the legislator took a vote that passed that said putting a limit on how much we can save. >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: ok. do you know how they came to the figure 7 million? >> on the next slide, the formula that was designed for that senate bill was that 33% of the five-year revenue of the community services of supports should be the max we can have.

so the community services of supports 33% of the five-year revenue from that component is the max we can have and that amount is approximately $7.7 million. that is how i came up with that amount. >> supervisor cohen: do you know who carried this legislation? >> i want to say bill but i need to get back to you on that. >> supervisor cohen: no thank you -- no problem. thank you. go on. >> we are looking at the risk and we are required by law to distribute our revenues across the five components of percentages. some of our revenue goes to that component and 19% goes to prevention and early prevention and five% goes to innovation. the other two components we can move up to 20% of our five year average and to the other two components which is workforce education and training and

facilities and technology needs. each of these components have a revision. for innovation, they have to spend the funds within three years. and for the other two, we have a revision period of ten years. currently in san francisco, we have approximately five programs that we funds that range from an array of services that include prevention, early intervention, outpace student housing and intensive treatment. just to highlight some other parts of our program, it is a program that provides wraparound services for serious mental illness. over time we set -- we have seen an 80% decrease in mental health and substance use emergencies. one of our focus programs, african-american program, we saw a 98% reported an increase in

the social connections. and for prep, which is an early psychosis program, 81% of clients demonstrated a decrease. finally, we have the san francisco unified school district and 95% of students reported coping with stress as a result of therapy. looking forward 418-19, we are expanding our transitional youth program for youth 16-24 to add a mobile treatment of service which is a treatment that moves around the city. and also to develop population specific programs about how to improve the underserved, like the asian community, african-american, lgbtq, just to name a few. we have three innovation projects that we are developing. one is around technology and mental health.

it is a program that provides psychoeducational lines to help reduce isolation and increase social connectedness. there is a proposition on the ballot. it is a two billion-dollar housing bond that helps develop housing for individuals who are homeless with serious mental illness. this is a state program. the reason why we are keeping an eye on this program because at a state level, we will be paying back the bond. to have an impact on the local revenue over time. lastly, for quality improvements , we commit to an outgoing evaluation of all programs and projected revenue for 18-19 is around $35 million in our projected expenditure is $33.3 million. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for your presentation. supervisor stephanie has a few questions to be three i do have

a few questions. are we holding onto any funds because of the ongoing lawsuit at the state? are you familiar with the lawsuit? >> which one? >> supervisor stefani: it is a lawsuit that was filed after the 2 million-dollar bond was passed basically saying that housing wasn't a legal use of the ballot measure fund. i know that there are some funds that we are not able to spend because of this ongoing lawsuit and i'm wondering if you know the status of that lawsuit. >> when it did, initially this program was supposed to be a housing program and was meant to be for 2016. after the lawsuit was put forth, the implementation didn't go through. it did not affect us locally. it was put in the november ballot. if it passes, it speeds up the

pallet -- the process and we can keep an eye on the impact because the board has repaid back the program. >> supervisor cohen: ok. thank you. how much do we receive from the state for all of this programming? >> can you please put back the slide? thank you. our revenue is very volatile. it varies. on average, our average revenue is about $30 million for five years. >> supervisor cohen: how can we smooth out the volatility of the revenue? >> we cannot smooth it out. we have -- >> supervisor cohen: based on the wet? the number of billionaires? >> it is a one% tax on individuals who are making million dollars or more. we have to have a reserve and put a limit on it.

we also have a little unspent funds that we could use to help us during an economic downturn. >> supervisor cohen: is that the only -- revenue source? >> yes. we are under the beaver health services which is under the department of public health. it is a mix mixup of less than ten% of the overall revenue. in some cases, they can help support programs that we fund. >> supervisor cohen: so then i would say that 100% of the money that we receive comes from the state. >> correct. this is a state program. >> supervisor cohen: ok. another question. what is the demographic breakdown of services across these five funding areas? in your presentation you highlighted asian american,

african-american -- >> there are prevention element components and that we are one of the five companies. we have what we call population focused programs that use community-based evidence to help address the needs of various cultural and specific communities. with that, we expend about five% of our budget with this population. however, we still have the old community serving programs that have a good percentage of various ethnic and various cultural communities. >> supervisor cohen: ok. do you have an idea or a statistic you could share with us about the breakdown between the sexes? between the number of women that are served versus the number of men served? >> overall, no. everything is broken up by component. each component has a rule as to

which type of services can be provided under this component. this report i'm giving you has a breakdown for demographically gender, age and sexual orientation and things like that is all broken down by various components. >> supervisor cohen: thank you i appreciate that. all right. i have no other questions. we should go to public comments. thank you, very much. does i don't want to comment on item number 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will make a motion to approve this with a positive recommendation. if i can take that without objection? this motion is moving forward with a positive recommendation. thank you. madam clerk. before we close out, i would like to make a motion to rescind the vote on item five and i would like to weight until i get an answer about the five g versus four g question that i raised earlier when we were dealing with item five. may i get a motion to rescind the vote for item five?

thank you. thank you. i would like to continue item five to the next meeting on october 25th. just as a point of clarification , do i need to take a public comment? thank you. i would like to move that we hear item five on the agenda for october 25th. thank you, very much. without objection. is there any business before this body? >> there is no further business scheme on -- >> supervisor cohen: thank you we are adjourned.

>> 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 -- concrete shell, you open it and it's black. you feel like it's the end of the world. no. we have our team and we sent three guys and the concrete is p polished. you get it back, and you are back in business. you can get that only if you have a commitment and a team working on a day-to-day basis. otherwise, it's not working. i think the belief was to get

the more contemporary design, more modern, to reflect today's san francisco. so that's where we went to the design. so it's not generic. it's well thought out. and we think we have something. but we want to listen to your comments and see how we can adjust and adapt. >> commissioner wolfram: thank you. i want to clarify for the members of the historic preservation commission. we should be looking at this through a lens that we'll be granted certificates of appropriateness to the kiosks and toilets in historic districts. it's a reasonable question to ask about maintenance and durability, but we need to focus or lens not on personal opinion whether we like or don't like it, but if they can be compatible in the historic districts that they will be placed. that's an important position. i had a couple of questions for

the design team. what is determining the height of the toilet structures? it looks like there's quite a lot of space in the top. then the second question, and maybe you said this, but is there any reason that the kiosks can't be round, the advertising kiosks? two questions for the designer at the jcdecaux team. >> this is my opportunity. i've been working on this with bill. the space above the toilets, the true maximum height of these is dictated by transport of them on day one. so they have to fit underneath muni overhead wires and cables, wall being on a low-slung truck, which sets us at about 12 feet. the height there, part of it is

a function of trying to maintain the exterior cladding being identical. so the one that you see -- in the image that you were seeing, the bottom 18 inches or so is a concrete base, because that's where most of the abuse is. it's where you kick it, the cart runs into it. it gets really abused. the next 5 1/2 feet, which goes up to the head of the door, is metallic and really where you will get the most of the graffiti, because it's at writing level. and there's a texture on it to prevent stickers and larger graffiti pieces on it. we're working on the exact dim he shuns -- dimensions and sizes. the two panels are almost identical, so that jcdecaux can stock one panel. it goes this way or you turn it over and it goes like this.

it's a little shorter and roof works a little different, but generically, the same panel, so they wouldn't have to stock as many for replacement over 20 years. there's the door mechanism infrastructure up there because the doors are sliding and there are motors to get that to work. there's a skylight infrastructure and reserving space up there that could be a greenery on top of the roof. what was your first question? >> commissioner wolfram: the round. they're round now. the question was, why are you moving to a triangle? is it impossible to do a round kios kiosk. >> there's a desire to have l.e.d. advertising modules and those are ideally flat.

one of the options that we showed you is in that realm where the glass exterior cladding is not necessarily aligning with the panel behind it. it's a geometric exercise, square peg, round hole to, get that minimized as much as possible. the square footage of advertising on the kiosk is dictated in the jcdecaux and public works contact. it's trying to get the correct width of a flat panel l.e.d., getting three of them in a triangle and wrapping it with a circle, it becomes enormous. so it's geometric, freshman-level geometry. [laughter] >> commissioner wolfram: thank you. very helpful.