“3—Do you favor an underground conduit system for Market Street and for the streets with cable lines leading into Market Street in the central downtown district and in the adjacent residence district, the remainder of the system to be overhead trolley?
“Votes received—Yes, 198; No, 84.
“4—Irrespective of what shall be done on any other streets, which system do you favor for Sutter Street: (a) an underground conduit, or (b) an overhead trolley line if equipped with ornamental poles and lights furnished free by the Railroad company, or (c) an improved cable system?
| Underground Conduit | Trolley | Cable | |
| “First Choice | 217 | 93 | 5 |
| “Second Choice | 42 | 83 | 62 |
| “Third Choice | 7 | 14 | 94 |
“5—Do you favor changing the cable lines on Nob Hill to electric lines by tunneling the hill and constructing a winding driveway with parks on California Street, as proposed in Mr. Parsons’s report?
“Votes received—Yes, 158; No, 140.”
This vote was taken after an extended debate at a banquet given by the Association in which Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, argued for the trolley system, and Frank J. Sullivan, president of the Sutter Street Improvement Club, spoke for the conduit.
The Improvement and Adornment Association employed D. H. Burnham to draw plans for the development of San Francisco. These plans, while drawn to attain a maximum of utility, were intended to secure a maximum of beauty as well. Streets were to be widened, boulevards built, parks established. The carrying out of these plans would have made San Francisco one of the most beautiful cities of the world. Their preparation cost the association $17,500. Mr. Burnham volunteered his own services.