>> good evening and welcome to the october 10, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is chris wong, commissioner ann lazarus. we have one position on the board that is currently vacant and the board may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. in

such a meeting, the board may overrule the action of a department by 3 members. to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian, at the controls tt board assistant, victor pacheco. we're also joined this evening by representatives of the city department that is have cases before the board, scott sanchez is here, he's the zoning administrator also representing the planning department and planning commission, also joined by planning staffer tim fry and joseph duffy is here, senior building inspector, who is representing the department of building inspection. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the board guidelines. >> the board requests all cell phones and pagers be turned off so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows:

appellants each has 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals. people included in these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assure the board with accurate minutes, member s of the public are asked to fill out speaker card. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction surveys on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a board rehearing please speak to the board staff during a break or after the hearing or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board of appeals office is located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is

broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78 and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv thank you for your attention. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidencary weight, please stand, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. (witnesses sworn). >> thank you.

president wong, members of the board , we have one house keeping this evening, that has to do with item 5, appeal no. 095, concerning the house on lans street. any public comment? seeing none, mr. pacheco, call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue item 5-11095 to the call of chair, the board's indefinite calendar, on that motion, the vote is 4-0. this matter is continued to the call of chair. >> thank you. we will call item no. 1, which is public comment for items that are not on tonight's agenda. is there

anyone here who would like to speak on such an item? seeing none, we will call item no. 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? nothing? okay, item no. 3, then, which is the adoption of minutes. before you for your consideration, commissioners, are the minutes of the board's meeting of september 19, 2012. >> i move to adopt. >> thank you, is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you would call the roll, please. (roll called). the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adauplted. >> i'm calling item 4, 4a is a

hearing rerequest, the subject property is 69 montezuma street, decided july 11, 2012. at that time the board voted 4-0 with one vacancy it deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the permit on the basis of planning code section 150. the project is an existing large gate to be removed and replaced with fence and gate combination to comply with notices of violation. i believe at this time the parties have a request to continue the case, if you'd like to step forward. >> andrew zacs, attorney for the rehearing requestor. pleased to report to the board about 2:00 this afternoon my clients reached a settlement with the neighboring property owner, the person who is the holder of the parking easement.

it is my belief that in order to effectuate this settlement we will be asking the woerd it take further jurisdiction over the permit. it's possible that won't happen. i'm not quite sure what the zoning administrator's position is, but i intend to try to persuade him over the next couple weeks that the most efficient way to resolve the matter would be through the exercise of this board's jurisdiction and we will be discussing the matter, i believe the zoning administrator supports the continuance at this time and i can represent that the neighbor and her counsel also support a continuance to allow us to finalize the settlement. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the department would not oppose a continuance of the subject item and definitely we're 73 happy to the parties have been able to reach an amicable solution. we're happy to have a meeting with all parties to see what the best path forward would be. i don't know what that path

would be, but we can have the discussion. >> commissioners, our calendars are quite full over the next few wex. even though it would be tight, my recommendation would be november 7. >> okay. >> does that work for --. >> given the long length of time and complexity of the item, i would request some additional time. >> november 5. >> that's better for us. >> great. >> is there a motion then commissioner? >> move the item be continued until december 5th. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? okay, you can call the roll. >> on that motion to

reschedule item 4-a to december 5th. (roll called) the vote is 4-0, this matter is rescheduled to december 5th. >> okay, great, so we can then, item 5 has been continued to call of the chair so we'll call item 6, american legion war memorial commission versus the historic preservation commission. subject property is at 401 van ness avenue, protesting the granting on july 18, 2012, to the department of public works a certificate of appropriateness exterior alterations to the subject property. motion number is 0166 and it's on for hearing today so we will begin with the appellant or the appellant's attorney, you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good afternoon, honorable commissioners, my name is

nelson lum, i am the chairperson of the american legion war commission. we represent the interest of san francisco posts the american legion pertaining to the veterans building. we are not the tenant of the veterans building, we are the beneficial owners of the veteran's building. the city and county of san francisco does not own the building in fee simple and absolute, it owns the building in a trust. the named beneficiaries are the san francisco post of the american legion, three other veterans groups and such other patriotic organizations that the san francisco post of the american legion may from time to time desire to install. on november 12, 1930, the board of supervisors obligated the city to operate the war memorial complex in accordance with the trust agreement by accepting the assets of the trust subject to terms and conditions of the trust. because the city only owns legal title, the san francisco

post of the american legion are real owners of the building. the courts have agreed. such estates are in equity what legal estates are in law. the ownership of the equitable estate is regarded by equity as the real ownership. in other words, the city holds only legal title sufficient to carry out its duties as a trustee. as beneficial owner, we have a vested interest in seeing to it that the historic significance of this building is preserved. our presence in this building began in the 1930's and have since been a part of the fabric of this magnificent structure. the veterans of world war i were there for the ground breaking ceremony of the complex. they were there to witness the completion of the project and they rejoice. it is our

mission to preserve and maintain this building for the future generations of veterans. the veteran's building has been dedicated as a historical land mark by the federal, state and city government. it is vitally important that all aspects of this building's historical linage is preserved so that future generations can learn from the past. the appeal we have filed is based upon our assessment that the certificate of appropriateness approved by historic preservation commission did not take into account the lack of structural studies advanced by the representatives of the trustees for the replacement of the skylight panels. while detailed description of all other aspects of threat troefitting project were provided to the historic preservation commission for its approval, it was shocking to fiepld there were hardly any detailed provisions for the planned replacement of the skylight panels. i am not an engineer or an architect and i would defer to technical

argument to the vice chair of the war memorial commission, mr. cox, who is an engineer. thank you.

>> your time starts at 3.52. >> my name is paul cox, i'm the vice chair of the american legion war memorial commission and today's appellant. i'm also a civil engineer with 27 years experience in the bay area, associate principle at which is jany associates, architects and material scientists that specialize in investigation and rehabilitation of existing structures xluiing preservation work on a great many historic

buildings. just as one example, our firm did the investigation and design of repairs on the washington monument after the 2011 east coast earthquake. i have a lot of experience in this realm. i have worked on a number of historic buildings myself. i have not stood before you before, but i just wanted to establish that i'm not just an angry vet but that i have some experience in these technical issues. what's before you today is a very serious error in the certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic preservation commission. at the time of its issuance the commission based its decision on a 50 percent completion set of drawings which was in itself appropriate. much of the retrofit and rehabilitation still has to be worked out. however, the commission resoifd final decisions on only two important aspects of the exterior work. first they required a mock up of the

historic terra cotta repair to the exterior facade and secondly they required a mock up of the repair and rehabilitation of the historic windows of the facade. so far, so good. they failed, however, by agreeing to allow the complete replacement of the historical hurpb coated copper roof and steel frame skylights with an unsettled set of materials. reviewing the documents in front of you, in exhibit 4 of our brief, cary and company, who did the historic and structural review, recommended installation of dual glazed panes with one wire glass element to match the existing and there are other recommendations but that's essentially most of it. however, in the series of drawings and specifications provided to the historical preservation commission and in the set of drawings issued to

the department for the site permit, there are numerous contradictory callouts. just a few exhibits, exhibit 6, sheet a400 from the 50 percent set, there are fwo rr relevant notes on this page, no. 7, if you'll see in the upper left-hand corner, no. 7 and no. 15 -- okay, great, thank you -- no. 7 calls for new steel skylights and repair of the roof. and no. 15 calls for the copper coated -- the lead-coated copper roof. another example is sheet a-401 from the site permit set, the later set, and it has two similar callouts and they also call for the repair of the roof.

however, exhibit 14 calls for a new roof, sheet b-803 on the 50 percent set and as you can see in the circled areas, aluminium receiver set and seal -- basically, an aluminium system and the same sheet, two other details calls for aluminium. i could go on, but, you know, if you have had time to study our appeal brief we point out several other contradictory approaches for the skylight repair. my point is these mutually exclusive things will have to be resolved and it is incumbent on the historic preservation staff to review the signs and approve as test of mock up. >> you have have time for rebuttal. >> sir, i have a couple questions. one is what

relationship is your organization have with the war memorial commission? >> well, we are the war memorial commission. we are the appellant. the board of trustees is a mayorial appointed and supervisorial appointed commission that is in charge of the veteran's building, the opera building, daly symphony hall and the zellerbach hall. the war memorial commission is the voice of the american legion in san francisco. >> you folks are tenants, the building were you folks involved in the program development and design development? >> we are not tenants, we are beneficiaries of the trust agreement from 1932. >> let's leave that aside. are you folks in the building? >> we are in the building, yes. >> were you folks involved in

the program development and design development? >> of the retrofit and repair? we have tried to be but essentially the board of trustees has shut us out at most times, saying they are the trustees, we're the beneficiaries, they're going to decide what's good for us and they're going to decide what's good for the building. we feel that we have, as veterans, this building was built as a result of the 1928 bond agreement and it was really, it was really conceived and made possible by the veterans of world war i. >> understood. we read the brief. my last question would be you have indicated in your brief that you want to see a mock up presided over by preservation staff of the planning department. >> correct. >> you have a concern that,

what, the appearance of what is being proposed or in terms of the proportions of what is being proposed? >> neither. we have a concern is that they are taking what is essentially the fifth floor of the building, it's not a floor but from the exterior it looks like the fifth floor of a 4-story building. it's a very visible very important architectural piece of this building and the historic preservation commission has just washed their hands of it. it could look very different than what it should to restore a historic property. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, we can hear now from the motion holder, miss lamont or someone else representing --.

>> good evening, members, my name is tara lamont, i am the dpw manager for the siz mik upgrade and improvements of the veteran's building. when we started this project over a year ago we, the impetus was the seismic upgrade but we soon realized that the building envelope, which means the exterior walls and the roof were in such serious disrepair and deterioration that this became as serious a threat to the building as the seismic weakness of the building. so we immediately started to investigate the conditions and then