deteriorated the existing ones can't be retained. if we put back the skylights they'll have to be water together. and what this means is a far less subtle design a non-flush design that wouldn't match the skylights nor be like the matching opera house. we can achieve the symmetry and, in fact, the revolver without the skylights would be closer to the original isolate design then if we tried to pit backwater tight skylights. also as tara are a mentioned given the change of the -- on the fifth floor the location is

not deservable but the skylights are reversible should they be discovered to be put back. the designs not only meets the secretary of the standards but it's the design the author intended >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> commissioner wolfram. i have a question i'm a little bit cuffs because in your presentation you said that the opera or the folks didn't like option a because of the change in the appearance and different from the flush appearance but at the same time, you said those skylights are not visible at all. that doesn't seem like that's

american peopan argument this is for the cost savings? and in terms of the function it could be take care of >> we wanted to put the isolates back in but we done or said southern problems. when we say it's visible and not visible it's the fifth elevation of the roof. we feel that even if you can't see those skylights from the street you know it's still sort of not appropriate to do something totally against what the original architect intended.

replacing the panels is not that much chamber and the opera is taking care of the glazing and there is so much light that comes in because when the ceiling are not there it's a problem for them as you can imagi imagine. it was difficult to get the right amount of light in. we have things below this that's an media education room and a custom shop and set forth. their delighted about the natural light there's just too much of that. we wanted to let you know it's not a cost issue

>> although they're not visible from the street they are from buildings. >> commissioners, any questions or comments? for staff or sponsor. any public comment on this item? we have to speaker cards (calling names) >> good afternoon chair and members of the commission. just briefly on behalf of the san francisco for the posts of the american legion we don't take sides with the project sponsors regarding the choice between alternative a and c that's a matter of judgment. however, we request for a slight modification of the condition recommended by staff.

& as we understand the condition they provide a mock of reviewed by staff we request when the project sponsor praufrz that make up to staff that the san francisco post to the american legion who were beneficiaries of this building receive the notice of the bring your attention to see what what it consists of and the appropriate comment >> thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners president hasz i'm paul the vice chair the american legion competent that oversees the veteran building and is the sole beneficiary of the trust we

take a great interest in and how project is prooegz. i want to express our gratitude to all the staff at the department of public works as well as the contractor in keeping us in the loop as this project progresses. we're happy with that. as to today's proposal from the city we would like to support not to contradict jerry too much but option b is the one to go for. i map to be a civil engineer with 28 years of experience with roofs and the like. i've looked their plan and met with the staff and the designers in seeing how a skylight can

work it's nearly impossible the flushed skylight is a difficult daily. by eliminating the skylight you eliminate a series of problems. the nearly unsoluble part is the water leak and the fourth floor didn't need the additional light points that's going to be produced by remaining skylights and it will match the opera. if you're not familiar with the roofs take a walk around the block and tara are a is right

you can't see the skylight from a distance you can but the skylight is not an important issue. option c isn't it's not a big deal one way or the other but on a low slope revolver if you add another kicker just to provide the architecture line water will collect and deteriorate the roof more quickly. i ask you to look at option b >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> go ahead. >> good afternoon president hasz and a members of the commission. i'm a member of the commission i've been the past chairman and now the executive director of the veterans success center.

we're all residents 0 from cross the street. we hope this will be moved forward with full speed so we can get back into the knowledge by the way, being away from the veterans building has affected our americans legion and we're having problems of transportation and this is part of the men legion a in the course place to give jobs to veterans. our main veterans building is making it difficult for our veterans to get the job training in terms of employment. i encourage you to move quickly. i'm not a technical person but whatever option you choose do it

quickly >> thank you. >> commissioners i'm jim i've been involved in safekeeping matters. i rise to make a picky point in the context of the larger issue. the roof matter came up before you and listed the architect at the blaine and blake well. i sent e-mails that the firm was called blackwell and brown and have been resolved in 1987. this - my e-mails in april were go forward which this came up again, i got in touch with any friend. however, in the material today it still says arguing our brown

and that's nonsense. all the historic documents related to the civic center the underlying animation of the safekeeping center doesn't mention the architects. the papers relating to 130 van ness it's a high school of commerce there was never such a building. the documents that are prepared for the main library says the old city hall was demolished in the wrong year. city hall is the the doom is

higher than the one in the cpa capital that's false. the story of safekeeping center is not being told right and i think why senator clinton dismissed the exhibition auditorium. the term safekeeping center was coined and the design for the city of cleveland a group plan effects the civic center. people come and say we should make safekeeping center an american heritage but if we're going to do that we need to correct the historic record and make it a concise and clear case why it's important. because currently if you look at the hodgepodge bunch of material

that's out-of-date it doesn't tell a good story >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed back to you, commissioners. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i'm also amazed at the amount of detail it's impressive. i do want to agree that it isn't visible from the street and ms. golden beggar ore comment about matching the opera house x which, of course, does not match

anymore but it makes sense from the point of heat gain and reversible i think option c is a little bit fussy and a meaningless to draw a line on 9 metal panel to indicate where it was changed. if it's being changed it's being changed for a good thing and no reason to hostility something that unless you're in a high-rise above you may see so option b is the correct response >> thank you commissioner wolfram. >> i would say say i'm not completely decided. if arthur brown didn't want the skylights he wouldn't have put

them there. i think it's disingenuous to say we we should have shoot metal because he didn't want skylights because it was something he motive have intended. when i look like those buildings that are adjacent it's apparent there's skylights and a small curb would be less of a change than changing it to melt. i'm not saying i'm not going to vote for it i will but i believe the prop arguments are different. the curb is different but you'll definitely see it from different buildings the isolates it's a big change. the argument i find sometimes to be a little bit they're not the arguments that are the real arguments for this change >> thank you.

commissioner johns >> moving to a little bit different that's the last speaker this has come up occasionally. this is his comments about correcting those points of history about the safekeeping center. i would like us to seriously do something to address that >> thank you sxhvld. >> my preference is the skylights. i think they're important for the building. having a half-inch curb is not a big deal. option c is kind of apply indicating it it doesn't make a difference so my preference is option a. option b would be reversible at

least the skylights are visible underneath i'd like to see that >> thank you commissioner pearlman. >> i agree with sxhvld and commissioner wolfram but the idea we never change buildings for any reason we don't know if arthur brown was around those skylights leak, of course, we'll never know what he thinks but it's one thing to say we're going to change the facade element that's part of the character of the this. this is a space that's not assessable to the public it has cat walks and things up there. again, i'd hate to think you know that arthur brown was a god and we can't touch anything.

i'm dealing with an arthur brown building which is a revolver top for the bank which was clearly designed on a napkin we are struggling because his name is on it. i think we should be able to change buildings and if it's reverseable then we can bring it back >> commissioner johns. >> i want to clarify because the staff report it option c; right? and you led off with b. then we have very good support for b and i guess a and aaron

you're going for a. i can see where i'm leading off from the comment about the line that would two things that sort of this additional lion i'm attracted to the idea of keeping the same look but if fundamentally that's going to remain water as well as open a are we still falsz with the same idea of leaking or are we coming up with the mitigation of the leaking problem. if we are i'll lean to a >> that would be taken up with the project team. >> i do want to comment because i did tour this morning.

this would never pass title 34 curly mean this thing is a heat capturing machine and there's a whole another level a light filter so you can't see it from below i'm with the option b make it clean and simple it's reversible one day that's my spot on this. it's the cleanest solution. we did a recuperate for reno with a low slope and skylight it still gets made on calls so i understand when your dealing with that, i will go with the klein look. commissioner johns

>> well, i said what i would say so - can i make a motion? >> sorry tom. >> would it help with the commission if the designer talks about the skylights a little bit more. >> that's all going to get taken up with the project team a so let's go ahead. >> i'd like to make this option with b. >> thank you. one quick comment >> commissioners there was a request to invite the veterans. >> i'd like amended my option to notify the veterans.

>> i accept the amendment. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can call the question on that motion commissioner to approve option b with an invitation to the veterans team. >> that would the motion a member. >> a member of the veterans team. thank you. on that motion sxhvld. commissioner johnck. uncommon. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and commission president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and - >> we have oneokay. >> we're what can to the san

francisco building inspection. expirations we left off on the final item that was put to the end of the calendar item 12 for the proposed apartment work plan that is american people informational presentation only >> good morning, commissioners i'm director john ram. we're at the time of the year this will be my sixth budget. so we're here as a first of a series of hearings over the next few months to create and have adapted our budget for the fiscal years 14 and 16 and 15, 16. actually before i go over the

calendar just in a mutt shell from all the applications we're continuing to see an increase of the revenues because of the applications. in fact, the cranes are projects that we approved a while ago and those are going up at a fairly rapid case it's inprecedent in the history of the department and we're going to project how long this is going to last so it's difficult to know how much and how much to project over the next two years if it's going to crash or level off so as you'll see in the next presentation we're being somewhat caution. we're looking at the projected

growth we're projecting 2 percent the next year but the pace has been substantial. a lot of building altercation projects and we're trying to keep pace with the staff and keep the pace with new plagues. so today we are going to give you an overview of the work explain that we prop just to make sure this is only with existing staff levels. next time we'll have a better understanding of how much increased staff we'll be able to just have to what increases we might be able to support. today, if we keep the existing

numbers of staff what the work plan would be. we're going to the planning commission tomorrow as you see on the calendar. ultimately our budget has to be approved for the 21th of february and the mayor publishes his budget in june and wanted to start i think you've seen this our mission statement we want to make sure that what we're doing it consistent with the mission stated and we've vested the reality of what we do. we strongly endorse is and we think the budget reflect this mission statement.

with that, i'll turn it over to keith and tim will talk about the specification of the prestige plan. thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm keith the finance and it manager and i'll be presenting the plan for the upcoming two fiscal years. i've handed out copies of the presentation and made copies for the public as well. the mayor gave his budget restrictions and during that presentation they're currently projecting a shortfall and over $118 in the second fiscal year. they assume the revenues across all city departments.

the fiscal year 14 and 15 and 15, 16 are much lower issued in march of 2015 so the picture has gotten better since those reports were irrationally reported. the continued economic uncertainly the results the labor union negotiations and employee benefit cost growth so the instructions for our department is to reduce the general support by 1.5 percent which equates to over 1 percent which is $67,000. we don't receive a significant amount of allocation from the mayor's office it's minimal for

our department. other instructions are to have a discussion and minimize service impacts and review the foes to increase sufficiency were we'll submit the report to the mayor per his instructions. moving on the the staffing cross divisions no staffing changes are to occur but in early february we'll come back to you for position requests we're concerning. the base position are the fte count is over one hundred and 92 positions in the department that doesn't include temporary staff to review plagues. again the court: objection sustained. we're considering now position requests and will be presenting

them within the coming weeks. >> so, now a little bit of details within the planning department that were first is the currency planning condition staff is relatively stable and most of the staff in this twifgs a dedicated to application review more than 56 percent and there's been a conditioned use of applications over the past years with noble increases in building permits as well as condo with the recent change of legislation. there's been an there in volume and backlog because how quickly the volume has been coming in. the division has adequate staffing and reflects the current staffing where they've increased the staffing to provide better servi