work which is consistent, especially in this period. so it wouldn't be conjecture to try to understand what was there. but if i was doing the work, the first thing i would do is to call uc berkeley, environmental design archives and others that have drawings there. other architecture historians that specialize around the state. there are vast resources to try to understand what was there. >> commissioner moore: thank you. he is not only a well known architect in the united states, but his work is well published and do you meaned across the world -- documented across the world. there were certain times when modern american architecture was more appreciated in europe because the modern architecture is not here, but originates in

europe and i'm comfortable to there should be ample documentation that needs to be researched to establish a credible record for this building to be rebuilt at its intended -- in its original shape. >> president hillis: do you have something relevant to this? we don't take comment in the middle. >> the son, otto, lives in los angeles and there is a conservancy, l.a. conservancy. that might be a way. >> commissioner richards: i make a motion to instruct the project sponsor to work with preservation staff to determine the original floor plan and the

composition of the house that the commissioner is pulling up, to reconstruct the house as was. if there are no credible sources to reconstruct the house as best they can with -- that the record has. i know there is the assessor office drove around in 1939 and took photographs of all the homes to document the property tax bill. i pulled one on my house because i was replacing my front stairs. so there is a path that you can go to figure out what was there. even if it's not clear. so that's my motion. >> commissioner moore: second. even older buildings, san francisco there are records within dbi. they are in drawing form. they need to be researched. i pulled the 1949 drawings for the seismic retrofit on the building i live in.

so you have to do a lot of work, but they are somewhere. those buildings are not passed without permits. so i suggest that is also a resource and i would suggest that the historic research gets expanded to all resources that are available. >> commissioner richards: i'd like to amend my motion to include an interpretive plaque on the sidewalk out front that says this is a replica of the i know thera house. it was demolished and rebuilt according to the planning commission, and the date. so at least there is a record there.

>> president hillis: i'm a little nervous about what we're doing, recreating a neutra house. are we using the same material, the same wood? i want to get our perspective on that. it's a little odd. >> it is unusual. and secretary of the interior standards don't -- there are standards for reconstruction that should be followed having to do with historical research. so you might want to add that to your motion. according to the standards for reconstruction should be looked at. i haven't looked at them in a long time myself. i'd like to be sure i'm invoking the right thing, but i want to say there are vast resources. there is the wonderful 1938 aerial photos that are extremely

precise. that is an easy thing to research to understand the footprint of the house and would give information about landscaping even. >> president hillis: again, is it a modern -- is it a form of house done in modern ways? it seems a better way to go than an odd disneyland neutra. >> exactly. i understand your sentiment. because neutra was so influential in the modern movement, in america and europe, i think that to do a very -- a really excellent reconstruction based on historical documentation, knowing what the appropriate materials are, i think that you could execute something beautiful that would be very consistent with the original expression. i think actually, it would be a

great opportunity to bring that back. so i appreciate the sentiment. and i understand your worry to do something disney-esque or something like that. certainly if it's not well executed, but i think it could be researched and carried out quite well actually. >> president hillis: okay. i recommend they work with historic staff and our own staff. i think the sentiment is there, to be back -- >> as close to as they can. >> president hillis: doing materials and what not that may have existed in the 30s, that don't exist now, working with our preservation staff and planning staff to reconstruct something appropriate in that footprint. >> i would share that just because recreating just to say recreate something, how much of it are you recreating? is it all the materials? is it the interior? i think the secretary standard that she refers to are a good

guide. the details are important and when you make a decision like this. >> i think it's the form. >> commissioner moore: since this is a modern house, i think rebuilding is easier because modern architecture is easier to understand than historic architecture, given that historic preservation is geared toward preservation of much older buildings. i'm seeing that with a certain amount of enthusiasm, because there is indeed a better understanding of material and methods. rather than the danger of disney-esque as you are pointing out. >> maybe it would be helpful to add in the motion something about -- because for example,

energy codes are completely different, require different types of windows. there are all sorts of things that would not be there 80 years ago when the house was built. >> commissioner richards: absolutely. i'll include that in the motion. if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions and modifications to work with staff, preservation staff, to reconstruct the structure to the original footprint and massing according to the secretary of interior standards and to include an interpretive plaque that recognizes it as replacement of a neutra building as required by the san francisco planning commission. on that motion?

>> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: i would like to see materials added. not just footprint and massing. so method and materials, that is a detailing is very important. >> that's fine. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> clerk: including the terms method, its original method and materials. on that motion, commissioner koppel? moore? richards? melgar? hillis? so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, this will place you on the calendar for item 17. >> president hillis: we've got several more items.

>> sir? please note on october 18, 2018 after hearing in closing public comment, the planning commission continued this matter to this date with direction by 4-0. fong, hillis and richards were absent. in order for you to participate, you need to acknowledge you reviewed the previous materials. >> i did. >> i have. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. >> president hillis: go ahead. >> staff architect. sorry. this is a discretionary review of building permit application 2017-to construct a fourth story building to create an additional dwelling unit. at the core of the d.r. request, there were two issues of ms.

feinstein. the construction would cause ten ability displacement and economic hardship due the improvement costs to the d.r. requester. as you may be aware, the planning department has controls for displacement of rent controlled tenants under code 317. however project sponsors may be allowed to alter, remodel. for these cases, the rent board and relevant state laws has mechanisms for dealing with displacement and provides remedies for these issues. this item was continued to allow time to get more information from the rent board. i asked the rent board to send a representative to appear, but they were not willing to. they did respond to written questions i received yesterday.

i'll do my best to summarize. bear with me. there is lengthy detailed information. one, because the building is under rent control, the entitlements are under the rent board, which requires notice and compensation for temporary displacement or provision of comparable unit. displacement over 20 days require tenants reimbursed up to a maximum of $19,000 for relocation per unit, plus $4188 for each disabled, elderly or household with minor children. if the landlord knows or should know that the time of temporary displacement will be greater than three months, the landlord must file for extension -- petition for extension of time. a hearing that determines the reasonableness of that time estimate and may be approved by the rent board. the tenant must be offered back

the unit once the work is completed. pass-throughs are determined upon hearing of the owner. 100% of the costs may be passed through. but is limited in 1-5 unit buildings not to exceed $30 or 5% of the tenant's petition base rent in 12-month period. in order for the construction of additional unit and exempt the building from rent control, the landlord has to file a petition demonstrating that a substantial rehabilitation was performed. in order to conform to temporary standards of decent, safe and sanitary housing. there are requirements to qualify for substantial rehabilitation exemption. one, the building has to be deemed essentially uninhabitable. to find defects so severe that it is unsafe for occupancy and poses danger to the health of

the occupants or the general public. and has been found by a court, the department of building inspection, the department of health, that it poses danger to the occupants, neighboring public. in order to qualify, the landlord must prove all of the following. first, the building is older than 50 years old. two, that the building contained essentially uninhabitable residential units. that rehabilitation was required to conform to decent safe and sanitary housing. and that the costs of improvement was at least 75% of the cost of newly constructed residential building of the same construction type and units, excluding soft costs such as land, insurance and other fees. the rent board does not have records of a protected tenant at

this address, but that is not unusual as it does not indicate whether or not the tenant is protected. they do not make determinations. if the tenant is protected, there are additional entitlements. the project sponsor was asked to respond to the requester. this concludes the presentation and i'm happy to answer the questions. >> president hillis: we have two d.r. requesters? right, jonas? >> the first d.r. requester with drew in the last hearing. >> president hillis: we'll have a three minute -- no rebuttal. >> good evening. our concern is social nature section 101, 101.1 and 302 of

the sf planning code. the approval of this project will leave two families in a precarious situation and kreelt hardship. we have a 14-year-old son who goes to school up the street. below us there is a family, three generations, one elderly gentleman, a teenager and his parents. they've been there about 10 years. we were made aware of the intentions of the landlord to move into our unit or into the building after the construction and we wouldn't be welcomed back. it was given to us in an e-mail form. we presented it at the last meeting. the project, again, you guys were splitting hairs on the demolition, but for us it's a demolition, because we're not going to be able to move back

in. at least according to their plans. they've told us they're going to move in their whole meeting and they expressed that in the last meeting. you probably saw that. the city is meant to protect the supply of affordable housing as we've kind of alluded to evening. landlords, contractors, work around these rules in order to create fancy remodels, call them, you know, whatever, just to displace tenants. we don't know the intentions of this. the way it was planned, you know, for this remodel, or adding addition, they put down $100,000 in their plans for the cost of the construction. i mean, you can barely do a kitchen for that. they're adding another story, 80 feet in the back. i don't know. this is beyond the scope, that's what i keep hearing.

this seems like it potentially will be. there is nothing to stop them if guys approve it three years from now, selling them as condos. so i don't know if my wife wants to say anything. >> as you can see, this is where we are now. this is the new proposed one. and it's completely changed everything here. everything here is going to be gone and replaced with this. so it's like demolition. is my time up? >> 15 seconds. >> so also i want to say is they are getting rid of these rent controlled units and they are

turning it into single home. that's what they're doing. >> president hillis: now your time is up. is there public comment in support of the d.r. requester? good evening, commissioners. ian, legislative aid with sandra fewer. wanted to add onto the presentation as well just to say that we -- i did meet with the rent board as well as dbi to discuss this case and in general the potential of losing rent controlled units because of the construction. it's a very complicated issue. it seems like because of the plans in these units being within the current envelope, that the two units would still be subject to rent control. not sure about if there is a third unit, if that would be.

but really our concern from our office is the potential to sort of de facto eviction happening by creating a construction that goes on, that displaces tenants and they're not being welcomed back. if that is the intent, then that seems to be circumventing the rent board. and that is obviously a major concern of ours as we see a lot of displacement. we see a lot of work arounds for trying to get around the rent board regulations. so we're concerned about that and that's why we've been monitoring the situation. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commission, housing rights committee. i want to thank supervisor fewer's office for spending a lot of time working with us on

this case. we've spent a lot of time with the d.r. requesters. this owner, just to highlight this, lives close by to where the development is in a home they own. a very large home. and now they want to do a major alteration to this property. not for the benefit of the tenants, as was made clear in e-mails and testimony at the prior hearing. but for the benefit of themselves. these tenants will be displaced for many months. this ace major project, while the work is being done, far longer than the 21 days that the temporary eviction program for capital improvement is designed. so what do the tenants actually need? there are outstanding -- >> your time is up.

>> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> senior disability action, because there is a senior involved as a tenant in this building, as blaine has said, there are -- three generations in one unit. and then there is blaine and his wife and son in another. the idea of circumventing the laws that are there and the laws that are there to protect people is really scary for me to think about this situation. and again, [bell ringing] they live in a five-bedroom home with a legal inlaw unit, so the idea of aging in place, they have that. this does not add a third unit, adding a roof deck, extending the lower units while evicting two different families from that

building. something is really wrong here. i would urge you not to approve this. >> president hillis: thank you. >> which means take the d.r. and don't approve the project, yes. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. jonas, one more time, please. jerry, san francisco land use coalition. the proposed project is a monolithic structure that is a menace to the surrounding neighbors. as evidenced by the d.r., every floor of this building needs extensive remodel. not only the remodel would require the tenant to move, but the unit would lose 140 square feet. according to dbi testimony, when

you do a vertical addition, by design, you have a demolition which would require opening up the walls, ceiling of the lower floor to ensure they bear the new added load. so even if the owner does not touch the occupied units, the added floors will require extensive work on their units. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening, staff, good evening, commissioners. so we're the project architects. >> president hillis: pull that mic closer so we can hear you. >> is that better?

we're the project architects for the project. she recently retired, she is 70 years old. she lives in a house, five bedrooms. her thought is to sell the house and move to a smaller unit. the thought was even if she did the remodel, she would move into one of the units to down size, hoping one of her kids would move into the other unit to help her out, but the house is too big for her. a five-bedroom house, almost 3,000 square feet. but she cannot maintain on her own. for her to move into a thousand square foot unit would be ideal for her at her age. and sell the old house to have cash on hand. so the thought process was for her, even without moving forward with the planned work, was at least move into the house, just

to down size. thank you. >> president hillis:ack. -- okay. >> good evening. i'm the owner of the avenue. i want to just to tell you that originally i really wanted to downsize and move back to my 20th avenue house. my engineer point out certain points to me, saying that 20 avenue is built in 1916. it's over 100 years old. and then we bought the house in 1971. i lived there almost all my life until i got married. then my husband passed away when my oldest daughter 6, 4, and 2. so i move out so that my mother could help me take care of my children so i can go to work.

now my children are grown up and moved out. so this big house is too big for me. i'm too scared and lonely there by myself, so i like to downsize. so john suggest, why don't you move back to 20th avenue? that way, your children might be able to move back. and take care of me when i'm getting older. so that is the idea come up to rebuild the 20th avenue. it's not like, you know, we want to get more money or whatever the case is. also, from my point view, i think that with this building, that the construction go on. it will actually [bell ringing] better for everybody, because i am doing -- >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment in support of the project sponsor?

seeing none, we close public comment. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: in our october meeting, i think we asked a number of questions. one obviously the issue of displacing tenants have been exemplified and explained to us. we asked for finding out if adu could be added. no new drawings. again, when i look at the plan, there is issue of privacy. i'm looking at the large ex-spans, that calls out storage. it is not justified with the size of the building. you have two garages, by the same length of the garage, you add expansion.

looking at the roof plan, while there is no railings added, it speaks for unoccupied roof. the addition of a penthouse seems to be speaking to potentially adding a roof deck that is not being called out in this particular drawing set. so the entire project speaks to an enlargement. that does not really address the concerns we have about the unit size, displacing tenants, adding adu, the most important to be called out. for all of the things this has been hanging around since october. there are comments made by the commission and we're not seeing response to that. i think someone is kicking the can down the road and i do not

see any possible ability to support this project. >> i've had a lot of time too think about this. i've spoken to several folks in the tenants right community. i think what is unusual and extraordinary, we don't often see projects that come to us with rent control tenants existing. and try to get a remodeling permit. usually, it happens the other way around. folks want to go the ellis act route. or they follow the existing process that is in the law to, you know, redefine the relationship with the tenants

and then they come for permits. it's like this property owner is wanting to use this process as an excuse for eviction and i cannot support it. i understand -- i'm taking the owner at her word that she wants to occupy that building and wants to move in and do something else with her property, but i would say there is a process for that and it is not the planning department. so i will not be supporting the project. >> president hillis: is that a motion? >> a motion to not support the project. >> president hillis: jonas, a motion and a second? >> clerk: very good, commissioners, there is motion seconded to take d.r. and disapprove the building application. >> commissioner koppel: no.

>> commissioner moore: aye. that motion passes 4-1, with commissioner koppel voting against. this will place this on 18. 2831 pierce street. request for variance and reviews. >> good evening, david winslow. staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018-04267450 to contrukt a 4th story and 3 story rear. and 5 foot horizontal to the

front and the setback. there are four d.r. requesters. the first of 2845 pierce, adjacent neighbors to the north. and 2823 pierce adjacent neighbors to the south. and 2839 pierce, adjacent neighbors to the south. these three neighbors have reached agreement with the project sponsor. the fourth requester who could not be present submitted a letter in the packet concerned with the following issues. >> president hillis: so the three d.r. requesters are withdrawing? >> they're not, i'll get to that. bear with me. >> president hillis: sorry. i got excited. this noise, it's like living on

folsom street. [laughter]. >> d.r. requester is suggests to eliminate the vertical addition to reduce the floor area. onto the recommendation, in light of the agreement reached by four parties -- well, three parties and the project sponsor, i would like to abbreviate my presentation and turn it over to the project sponsor and d.r. and take the d.r. and revise it with the three immediate neighbors. i've just received an additional letter from the cal hollow, including the frosted glass on the 4th floor. this concludes the department's presentation. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> president hillis: so you're

all representing the d.r.? okay. so do you want to give your presentation on what the agreement is? so we don't have to go through this d.r., does that work for you, too? >> thank you. >> president hillis: you can jointly do this in a show of unity. >> we worked it out, so we can jointly do it. scott on behalf of the three requesters that mr. winslow identified. we have reached an agreement that we are asking the commission to bless tonight by taking d.r. and approve the project as modified, mr. frattin listed the modifications. but i want to thank mr. winslow for his diplomacy in handling this. it was a difficult situation as many of these neighbor situations are. i want to thank mr. frattin for working hard to come up with compromise. nobody is totally happy, but the neighbors are supportive of

taking the d.r. and approving the project as modified. >> president hillis: we're totally happy about it. >> we'll get you out of here quickly if i can just get the plans. i'll skip over some of the preliminaries here and just show you basically what we've agreed to between the parties. so this is a two-unit residence with two bedroom units. we have six-member family with mother-in-law and nanny that are living in these two units currently. they do need to expand just to have more living space for the family. the original proposal was to add an 18 -- actually -- yeah, it was an 18-foot popout to the rear of the building as well as expanding the main portion of the building itself.

as part of the compromise, what we have agreed to do at the above grade levels, is eliminate that 18-foot wide by 10-foot deep popout. the below grade popout at the garage level would remain. you can see both of the levels where it would be removed here. the other main point of the agreement and one of the d.r. requesters was ms. malone, who lives in the adjacent property that you see on the left here. roof deck and wanted to see views from her roof deck preserved over the new cornice line at the deck, in the front of the new 4th floor of the property, so what we're showing here is a reduction in height. at the front of the property. and then there are various agreements related to just

making sure that the deck railings are transparent and see-through for everybody on all sides. the last d.r. requester who is not here is not one of the adjoining property owners. the three that we've reached an agreement with, all immediately adjoin the property. the one d.r. requester remaining owns the building that you can see up the hill, about 175 feet away, with a 35-foot elevation change. and it's just readily apparent, if you read through the d.r., that the primary concern here is the loss of view associated with the fourth floor addiction. the views aren't -- addition. views aren't protected and it ain't much of a view. so we think it's an extraordinary circumstance. he had objections about roof

decks and the potential impact of the roof deck. you can see here outlined in red, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 roof decks on all of the adjoining properties, so this is really keeping in character with what is going on in the neighborhood where you have steep slopes, nice views and of course people want roof decks. there are about 20 letters of supports, including a new one that came in today from the cal hollow association. handwritten condition of approval reflecting the last-minute request. >> that's the five glass windows. >> exactly, the frosted glass

windows nays facing south. >> president hillis: let's open it up, in case that the remaining dr requester, if they are here would like to speak or anybody else from the public would like to speak on this proposal. >> commissioners, staff, my name is mason, i look at 2842 pierce, directly across the street from the large project to the north. and the penwell's property. i've lived here for a couple of years now and when i first moved in, the first thing i noticed was their property, which is not in character with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood. when i saw the plans for the work they were proposing i was happy to see they're going to be bringing the property up to the character with the rest of the properties bringing our neighborhood pretty much in line

with very similar architecture. i've gotten to know the penwells and recognize they're bringing their family, multiple gener generations to the property. they're helping us build a nice community. while i've not lived in the bay area, i've been here 19 years and this is the first opportunity to feel the community in the neighborhood. we go to the same church, our kids play together and i just want to say i would be disappointed if this project was not approved. >> president hillis: any additional public comment? >> i'm dan johnson, i live across the street. don't want to reiterate too much, but i side 100% with mason's comments that he gave. love the drawing. couldn't be more excited.

thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment? >> hi, i would like to say that there is a large family actually living in a house in a battleground that is not necessarily up to code and it's not necessarily the most healthy environment for the children. so bringing that building up to code and providing a good environment for kids to be raised is in everybody's best interests. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i live across the street and in fact, my window looks directly onto the penwell home and i cannot say how excited i am at the prospect that the facade of their home might be upgraded. in addition, i think they're a lovely family and i think that

san francisco is currently in a time where i think it's very difficult for young families to stay here. it's expensive. there is a lot of other reasons why it's difficult for them. and so i think where we have opportunities to allow families to establish a home here, it's really important to do so. as a young person in that neighborhood, i look forward to continuing to have a family oriented neighborhood. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment? seeing none, we close public comment. >> commissioner moore: i may have not paid attention, but if mr. frattin could answer another question? have you dropped the variance on height? >> so it's actually not a variance for height. give me a second to struggle

with my bad power point skills here and i'll pull up the appropriate slide. so -- >> commissioner moore: it's the front back. let's see. great, so the variance is actually a front setback variance because the front of the building, the front facade is built one foot into the setback, the front setback area. so any addition to the first foot of the building technically requires a variance from the front setback requirement. it's not a height variance. so in order to not have this variance, basically you have to have a very sort of disjointed

floor where you'd have a step at the middle of the story. and then go up. i'm not sure if i'm explaining that quite well. maybe mr. winslow could add a little color. >> the existing building is built over the front setbackline. any addition to that building in that plain would require a variance. and the variance is for that much being over the front setback. >> commissioner moore: second part of my question. the increase, the net increase of square footage in your model, what is the extent of that, please? >> so both units go up to an approximate total of 3400 square

feet. and so they go from, i think we have a total of four bedrooms in the current building to a total of seven bedrooms in the -- in the new structure -- or excuse me in the renovated structure. >> commissioner moore: we originally had 4390 square feet, existing. the original plan with the popout increase the building to 7,368 square feet. that has now been reduced. >> yes, that is correct. so the proposed unit area and the lower unit is now 3361 square feet and in the upper unit, it's 3402 square feet.

>> commissioner moore: while i am not principally objecting to the modifications that have been made to the building, i'm still concerned that we are in an rh 3 and i would have liked to see another unit added seeing the amount of square footage. we're trying to strive toward measured unit sizing. and this still seems rather large. i'm curious what other commissioners think about that, because it's a still a large expansion without the benefit of a third unit in an r 3 residential district. if you are okay with standing there, i would like the other commissioners to weigh in on the subject matter. >> i'm comfortable with the project as proposed.

commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i agree with commissioner moore, it doesn't pass the densification test for me. there is an agreement, i'm loathe to step in and require additional things. >> i would have liked to have seen another unit. but having an agreement from not one, not two, but three requesters is valuable, so i also don't want to rock the boat. >> president hillis: i think it's interesting to note. expanding two-unit buildings is not allowed, the only reason it's before us is the neighbors are okay with the expansion. when you come to remodel a two-unit building you should do

three units, that's what i would be comfortable doing, but just because it's a d.r. in front of us, we'll make the requirement. >> if the d.r. had merit, i would change my mind. >> president hillis: approve the project as proposed with modifications presented to us and we'll used document? >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to take d.r. and approve the project as modified, and outlined in the private agreement submitted today on that motion. so moved, commission, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> i'll close the public hearing and extend the grant with conditions. >> president hillis: the meeting is adjourned.

>> when i look at an old neon sign that's working or not working, i feel the family business that was in there. >> since 2009, citywide, sf shines, has supported businesses and sites like the ones that receive new neon signs. >> you know, sf shines is doing

an amazing job to bring back the lighting and the neon glow of san francisco. >> sf shines is such an amazing program, and i can't think of another program in another city that gives matching gunned funds to store owners, mom and pop owners, and if they've got a neon sign, they've really got a great way to advertise their business. >> this is a continuation of the sf shines program. >> focusing other neon signs is relatively new to us. of the seven neon signs, we've invested about $145,000. >> a good quality sign costs more, but it lasts infinitily longer. as opposed to lasting five

years, a good neon sign will last 15 to 20 years. >> in san francisco, the majority of neon signs are for mom-and-pop businesses. in order to be able to restore these signs, i think it gives back to your community. >> part of the project has to do with prioritizing certain signs in the neighborhood based on their aesthetics, based on their current signs, and base on the history. in the time that we've been here, we've seen a number of signs restored just on eddy street. >> there are a number of signs in the tenderloin and many more that are waiting or wanting to be restored. i have worked with randall and al, and we've mapped out every single one of them and rated them as to how much work they would need to get restored. that information is passed onto sf shines, and they are going

to rank it. so if they have x budget for a year, they can say all right, we're going to pick these five, and they're putting together clusters, so they build on top of what's already there. >> a cluster of neon signs is sort of, i guess, like a cluster of grapes. when you see them on a corner or on a block, it lights up the neighborhood and creates an ambient glow. if you havy got two of three of them, you've created an atmosphere that's almost like a movie set. >> some of the hotel, we've already invested in to get those neon signs for people to enjoy at night include the elk hotel, jefferson hotel, the verona, not to mention some we've done in chinatown, as well as the city's portal neighborhood. >> we got the fund to restore it. it took five months, and the

biggest challenge was it was completely infested with pigeons. once we got it clean, it came out beautiful. >> neon signs are often equated with film noir, and the noir genre as seen through the hollywood lens basically depicted despair and concentration. >> you would go downtown and see the most recent humphrey bogart film filled with neon in the background. and you'd see that on market street, and as market street got seedier and seedier and fewer people continued to go down, that was what happened to all the neon strips of light. >> the film nori might start

with the light filled with neon signs, and end with a scene with a single neon sign blinking and missing a few letters. >> one of my favorite scenes, orson welles is chasing ririt rita hayworth with neon signs in the background. >> i think what the office of economic and workforce development is very excited with is that we'll be able to see more neon signs in a concentrated way lit up at night for visitors and most especially residents. the first coin laundry, the elm hotel, the western hotel are ones that we want to focus on

in the year ahead. >> neon signs are so iconic to certain neighborhoods like the hara, like the nightcap. we want to save as many historic and legacy neon signs in san francisco, and so do they. we bring the expertise, and they bring the means to actually get the job done. >> people in tenderloin get really excited as they see the signs relit. as you're driving through the tenderloin or the city, it pretty much tells you something exciting is happening here. >> knee an was created to make the night more friendly and advertise businesses. it's a great way of supporting and helping local businesses. >> there's so many ways to improve public safety. the standard way is having more eyes on the street, but there's other culturally significant ways to do that, and one those ways is lighting up the streets. but what better way and special way to do that is by having

old, historic neon signs lighting up our streets at night and casting away our shadows. >> when i see things coming back to life, it's like remembering how things were. it's remembering the hotel or the market that went to work seven days a week to raise their money or to provide a service, and it just -- it just -- it just

>> vice president williams,. >> here. i can two his approval of the minutes of the november 13th, 2018 meeting. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none public comment is closed. >> executive session? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favour? you. all in favor, aye. >> i make a motion we reconvene in open session. >> all in favor, aye. >> okay, pledge of allegiance.