on february 23rd. i will highlight to you attachment 3 today includes a comment letter from the historic preservation commission which i will then provide to the planning commission so that they can read and know what your comments have been during the proposed budget hearings. so at this time i respectfully request your recommendation of approval of the department's fiscal year 15-16 and 16-17 budget. be happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i guess i'm still a little bit confused about the 8 fte's because it says on page 9 in the department's 14-15 a one-time allocation of 3 million was approved to fund 8 fte's one time funding has been removed from the proposed 15-16 budget moving forward. so what happened to the 8 fte's.

>> in our current fiscal year of 14-15, the board approved a one-time appropriation of about 3 million dollars. that funded 8 limited term positions and it will fund them for 2 1/2 years

so those staff that are being funded out of that one time appropriation are still on staff and we have adequate funding for them for 2 1/2 years. >> so it was pre-funded, not funded in each year. >> commissioner pearlman. >> mr. demartini, i have a quick question. it's in the details, the project line goes from fiscal year 14-15 at 4.8 million then drops quite dramatically to 1.6 million. could you explain what projects are ending or what's happening. >> keith demartini, department staff. that's the expenditure appropriation. >> so we solved the problem. >> commissioner johnck. >> let's see. on the projects, you mentioned the rail yards at the 280 intersection and also civic center. now, you said those were added since the last, since the presentation in january? have those been added? >> those are two of the positions that we are -- two of the lines that were going to be in the supplemental and will now be permanent next year. the civic center work that we're doing obviously will be of interest to this commission. we are starting that work along with tim and his staff along with the replanning and rethinking of the civic center open spaces. >> right. well i know too, the railroads, i'm interested in that too along with the port and that kind of connectivity there.

>> those positions we thought would be part of a supplemental, they are now being moved into next year's budget. >> i am curious about process. we had our meeting january 21 then you presented to the planning commission. did you, you know, some of the comments we made for instance about the importance of the city-wide survey, did you by any chance include those in your discussion with the planning commission or were there any comments? >> absolutely and also i think in the memo. >> cross pollination here. >> absolutely. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, seeing no other questions, and this is an action, so do we do public --. >> i have one question. >> commissioner wolfram. >> question for the director. given that last year we had asked feir a supplemental position on the historic preservation staff and there is also a supplemental one in this year's budget, what are your predictions, expectations, of reactions from the mayor's office? >> the position you requested

last year ultimately did not get approved. >> right. >> so this year we are hoping i am more confident it will be approved. i mean frankly there's a lot of dialogue that goes back and forth because there's a reluctance sometimes to create new positions so we're hoping that this time it will be approved. i'm confident that will be this year. >> what can we do differently, what kind of support could the commission or heritage or other organizations provide that might ensure a better degree of success? >> i think it's a fair question. i think the commission could advocate on your own behalf with the appropriate folks in this building both the mayor's budget office as well as the board. but the first step is the budget. the mayor, i think keith had it on his schedule, but we submit our budget to the mayor in late february, then when he receives all department budgets and he delivers his city-wide budget to the board on may 1st. so during that time between february 23rd and

may 1st is the time that the mayor's office is pulling all department budgets together and looking across the city. >> thank you. >> surely. >> oopbd that note i did pitch the note on our city-wide survey position and he was very receptive, very positive on that. i just dropped off the spur heritage report that shows the first 15 pages of a 40-page report is all about the importance of the city-wide survey. this is about development, not just preservation. development as a whole. commissioner pearlman. >> in that regard i'm wondering if any of the material you sent to the mayor maybe we could sort of have a form of a letter that each of us could modify, maybe send to the supervisors or also send to the mayor's office. because we all have relationships with different entities that will end up voting on this. >> absolutely. >> that might be of value. >> thank you, director. any other questions? seeing

none we will take public comment. at this time does any member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, close public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion, vote. >> i move approval of the budget work program. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion, then, commissioners, to adopt a recommendation for approval, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner johns, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. commissioner president hasz, yes. >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places on you item 9. >> thank you for all your work on this. >> case 2013-01546 to 1564 market street project.

>> good afternoon, my name is cis kern, i'm with the environmental planning division of the planning department. this as jonas just said this is the hearing on the draft eir on the 1546 to 1564 market street project. the draft eir was published january 27 and the hearing before the planning commission was scheduled for next thursday, the 12th of that, it will be continued to the 19th of february. the hearing today is to receive public comment as well as your commission's direction in consideration of comments on the historic resources impact on the project. those comments will then be addressed in the written response to comments document on the eir we will

not respond to those comments today. i am available if you have any questions about the environmental review process for this project and otherwise would like to recommend that you open the public hearing and i know thatd project sponsor ken diamond with true mark urban would like to make a few remarks about the project. >> we'll take the remarks then we'll have some questions, comments. >> good afternoon, my name is kim diamond, development director for true mark. i have a presentation here. this is just a brief summary of the project that we're proposing on the site that i will run through with you. some general project site details as i'm sure you know,

we span oak street to market along the site we have two parcels that we plan to merge with three buildings on them. so here is a slide that shows you the dimensions of the site. it's 120 foot height limit here so we're going up 12 stories. a summary of the open space, we have some open space on the ground floor, we have a spatious roof deck, the courtyard between our two building towers, there's a nice courtyard there and some private decks. the project details, we have 109 for sale units, we have providing affordable housing on site, 13 units of below market units, 11

junior one bedrooms, 24 two and we have 3 retail spaces on the

ground floor and the bottom part shows you the gross square footage of the building. might be a little bit difficult to see, but i just want to walk you through a few of the levels of the building. this is the basement level. we have one level below grade where we have our parking spaces, we have a point 25 ratio of parking spaces per unit with one city car share space and 110 bike parking spaces, which is an important component of our project, more than what's required for the project. going up to the ground floor on the right-hand side you can see market street with two retail spaces shown there and on the left-hand side is oak. oak is where we're proposing to have our lobby entrance and a small retail space. we've been working with the hayes valley neighborhood association and in speaking to them there are a few things really important to them, one of which is to really activate oak street, so we added a small, 200 square foot approximately retail space on oak street and that's also the place where we have a one-lane parking entrance down to the subterranean parking garage. walking up, a typical floor plan, there's two towers to the building that are kekd, as -- connected, as you can see there, with a covered walkway that spans through the various floors of the building, through the 12 stories of building. and the roof terrace again just kind of a conceptual idea, we're going to have a really lovely roof terrace at the talk of the building with seating, lounge area, a place for people to enjoy the view which should be quite speck tack klr.

-- spectacular. getting to here this will give you a better idea what it will actually look like on market street. the ground floor utility you can see and the building as it gets to 120 feet looking north, and then that's our property line along oak street looking east along oak street, there's a parking lot on the east side of our project site and this will give you a little more of the color and feeling what it will look like on market street. we're really hoping to activate the street at market. right now it's not in the greatest of shape with some retail users down there, a bit of -- there's a small art gallery down there and there's not a lot of life unfortunately on the street. so we're really excited about activating market street. then oak street similarly, on

the right-hand side you can see what could be like a flower shop in that 200 square foot retail space, the lobby entrance on the left is actually where you can walk down what's called the lazy stair dedicated for bito the subterranean level to park their bikes. these are the buildings that are there now, as i'm sure you are well aware of along market street, different views of the buildings along market street and then along oak street. so that concludes my remarks. i'm here for any questions that you might have. again thank you for your time, we appreciate it. >> commissioners, any questions at this time? because we're not doing public comment. >> oh, okay. >> public comment will be taken at the planning commission. >> we still have to accept public comment here. >> we do? >> yes. it will be part of the eir >> commissioner johnck. >> i can wait but i think the

staff just in the brief report here, two of the three existing buildings that would be demolished have been determined to be historic resources under ceqa. do you have some comments about your consideration of the historic resources on two of the buildings that will be demolished? >> it's because of the historic resources impact that we prepared an eir this is a focused eir that focuses only on that single topic. all the other topics were focused out there a planning exemption. because of the way the seek yeah process works, staff can't respond on substantive issues about the eir at this stage. we published a draft which you have received and at this stage we like to receive your comments and remarks. we'll respond to those comments in writing in the response to comments document. >> all right, thanks. >> commissioner pearlman.

>> i have a question on -- part of it is general, which is about how the alternatives, the historic alternatives, partial alternatives, full historic alternatives, are prepared. because in this case what i noticed was it felt like it was an either/or, you developed the little sliver parcel that is not the historic building and then there's nothing, we just don't even touch the other two buildings. then in the partial alternatives, you know, typically if there's a historic resource you know the suggestion is we set back approximately 15 feet and then you can go up from there. and it seems like you know one of the alternatives could have maxed out that option so that there was some way to bridge between tearing down the buildings entirely because it looks so drastic, you know, relative to the project sponsor's goals. so i don't know -- so that's

really my comment, is that in the eir it feels like there's something missing in the alternatives that could get closer without completely demolishing the two historic buildings. the one on market street, it seemed like a lot of its integrity had been lost. very little of, basically there's kind of a cornice piece, but everything below has been modified and changed from its original. i just kind of question, it seemed to me that was a original one if we had to lose one of the two that had a lot less integrity than the one on oak street, which then would be very similar to the project that was done where there was an automotive use, i think it's the project on hayes right there across the street or in the next block. but there's one where i think it's over by zuni, so whatever that alley

street is where the automotive use facade was kept and a larger building added to it. so that seemed like it could have a very similar character if they chose to keep that piece. >> thank you. >> thank you, this actually leads right into comments that i had. so we had our officers meeting with director ram, mr. frie, vice president wolfram and myself and environmental review officer sarah jones and this is exactly the subject. because on a broader spectrum that's that i felt and vice president wolfram has felt that this commission wants to meet product sponsor goals. we want to help them maximize their area. however wie -- we don't want to lose resources. specifically to commissioner pearlman, we keep seeing this either/or. oh, you are going

to lose a whole tower if you have a preservation alternative. no. and i thought i explained this previously to this developer previously on a previous project. i don't care if it's a 5-foot set back, to me that's worth it. and seeing this where it's either we do two towers or we do one or we do one, wrong. we're happy to approve two towers, especially when i see retail spaces that would easily fit into the facade of oak street. the oak street one, i cannot believe we would lose that building. so i'm extremely frustrated. so we're going through and we're going through to get a statement drafted through miss jones to give an understanding to the product sponsors. we would love to meet your goals and get as much square footage and units, et cetera, but we need a little help on preservation. and when i say a little, it doesn't have to be big huge setbacks, keeping the whole outside of the building.

give it the facade, call it facadism, whatever, but give us more alternatives that help us meet your goals but give us a little preservation in the meeting. commissioner johns. >> when i read the -- and maybe i misread it and if so i would like to be informed. but it seemed like there were 4 alternatives, preservation alternatives, but there were only three that were analyzed. so i am not sure -- and the last one that was analyzed did not have a name that related to any of the four alternatives, which i found to be confusing. so i would have liked that if there is an alternative i would like to see an analysis of it and it should have the same name as the alternative. >> thank you. seeing no other comments at this time we'll

open up for public comment. any public wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners, mike buehler on behalf of san francisco heritage. i for one as a member of the public would appreciate a presentation of the preservation alternatives that are reviewed in the eir heritage has yet to complete its review of the document, we do intend to comment, but it seems for your benefit as well as the public's it would be good to have a good understanding of what is being considered as preservation alternatives. i understand there are two partial preservation alternatives and one full preservation alternative. also with respect to the issue of facadism, just because it relates to this and other projects that have been approved really for many years in san francisco, heritage will be examining the issue of facadism in the coming months and we intend to issue a policy

paper with our position on facadism and whether or not it can be a successful preservation outcome and under what circumstances we might endorse or not endorse that approach. there are some troubling recent examples that have led to this inquiry including most recently project under construction on pine street between franklin and van ness. so anyway, we look forward to hearing more about this project and seeing your comments. thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioners? so do we have all of our comments? >> i would endorse what you are saying, what you have said about we would like to look at the preservation alternatives, where are they? >> i will put together a statement i think we'll bring to the commission before we do anything with it just talking

about our goal is to meet the sponsor's goals the best we can. and it's not these big huge sways of losing a 10 story tower just to save the building, it's like, no, there's better alternatives than that. seeing nothing else we will close this item. thank you. >> very good, commissioners, that will place you on item 10, case no. 2013.04164a, 25 alta street, certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners, kelly wong, department staff. the project before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for 25alta street, a contributory

compatible building within the telegraph hill landmark district under article 10 of the planning code. the subject building was originally constructed in 1876 by architect henry smith, a two residential dwelling unit building. 25 alta street is a two story over basement featuring hooded double hung wood windows with decorative cornice and horizontal wood siding. the proposed project is for the general restoration of the historic building, construction of a two story horizontal addition at the rear of the building, construction of a new roof deck and demolition of a detached non-contributing rear structure, specifically the proposal includes restoration of the italianate front facade including reintroduction of original openings replacement

of a nonhistoric front entry door and stair, a relocation of a non-historic garage door opening, removal of non-historic porches and restrooms at the rear and construction of a new two-story horizontal addition. construction of a new roof deck over existing roof and removal of a non-contributing detached rear structure, based on the review of proposed drawings, a site visit and several meetings and corresponds with the project with the project sponsor and design team the proposed project appears to meet the secretary of interior standards for article 10 for the following reasons: the proposal is compatible with and respects the character defining features of the historic building and telegraph hill landmark district. the proposed project will not damage or destroy distinguishable original qualities or character of the

original historic building. the proposed project will not remove distinctive materials such as the horizontal shiplap siding existing 2 over 2 double hung wood windows and hoods and decorative pairapet, 94 alter spatial features or spatial relationships that character triez the property or the district. the roof deck will have a simple design that is compatible with the building that is compatible with the district and the addition will not be visible from the public right of way and finally if the proposed addition is removed in the future the essential floor of the historic building and integrity of the historic front facading remain intact. based on these findings the department recommends approval with conditions of the project as specifically outlined in the draft motion, including prior

to the issuance of architectural addendum, the following shall require review and approval by the planning department preservation staff. 1, final details for the restoration of the historic building facade and a window and door schedule in the final permit drawings. 2, final details of the new addition including window, door and siding profiles and curve at roof. 3, final details for the new roof deck, low profile glass sliding door and guardrails. 4, specifications for treatment and protection of the historic elements, repair of existing wood siding and windows, new architectural elements including windows, doors balcony, fence, patio floor, roof deck and painting for existing new surfaces and finally, 5, samples for the proposed new elements including

wood decking at roof, patio flooring, new wood siding, 15 yirbs for guardrails, windows, doors and building colors. the department would like to make one clarification regarding the categorical exemption classification in the case report under the environmental review section on page 8. this should be class 1 for superior and exterior alterations and additions under 10000 square feet not class 32 for infill development projects. the project received 4 public inquiries on the project, including general questions about the plans, one letter of support from the telegraph hill dwellers planning and zoning committee, which is included in your packet, and two letters of concern both from neighbors john and teresa votruba the first letter of concern, which addresses the prior proposed project, is included in your packet and the second letter, which i have copies here for

the commissioner secretary, highlights the concern regarding the reduction of the required rear yard setback and proposed new roof deck due to privacy. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a short presentation to review the details of the proposed scope of work. i am available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is alicia skaggs we've been working with the planning department since may of last year and we've also had several meetings with the telegraph hill dwellers and have addressed all their comments and concerns. 25 alta is located in the telegraph hill district. the residence was constructed as a two story residence in 1876 and is attributed to henry smith. character defining properties for the property include the italianate style, the double hung windows, the simple cornice at the top and also the wood siding. this slide shows the existing condition of the house. previous alterations include the ai dition of a picture window, a front door at the first level, a garage door and

a door at the basement. there's also a shed that kelly mentioned in the back yard that's not historic. the proposed project includes the removal of previous non-historic alterations at the front facade, also the addition of new windows and doors that are compatible with the historic character of the property, repairs to deteriorated material, compatible addition at the rear side of the property and also the removal of the non-historic shed at the back yard. this plot plan shows the removal of the non-historic shed which is located, i'm not sure whether there's a mouse -- you can see it on the right side at the back of the property and then the right image shows a plot plan that's proposed and it shows the additions.