angular or curved, the color, the texture or the strength. they show small fragments of small details about how one skylight may be fastened to an unspecified part of an unspecified part of the roof. they don't show any skylight in context, nor do they show the skylights above the steep slope roof except perhaps by inference that we'll try to apply the same little details to those. and exhibit 14 is their drawing b803, which is dated february 3, 2012. not last year, this year. and it was submitted to the historic preservation commission. and it's contradicted by the 50 percent schematic which is our exhibit 6, drawing a-400, also

dated february 3, 2012, and it's also contradicted by the site set a-400, our exhibit 7. it's those contradictions that caused us to take a hard look at why there wasn't a condition of approval, namely that the historic preservation staff retain approval of the details of what the skylights are actually going to consist of. and what we've heard today is consistent with that objective because we've heard from the proponents, the respondants, that they are going to submit that to the staff so quit making that a requirement is really no harm at all. it's consistent with what they are good to go do. well, let's

make it a real condition. >> miss lamont, you have rebuttal, 3 minutes if you care to use it. >> tara lamont from dpw we have been developing the project over the last year and when we started, as i mentioned earlier at the early drawings we first thought we would do steel, then the reason to do aluminium is because it has better performance characteristics and we found we could get the same profiles. even today the details are a little different and more sophisticated than they were yesterday. we are continually imprafrbing our details and all we can say is that we are maintaining the historic profiles, we will be looking at them carefully, we will have a mock up and this is of utmost importance to all of us on the project. when the same team did the opera house we won the national trust historic preservation award and numerous other awards and we have a lot

riding on getting this done right. so we will certainly, you know, present our findings to the experts in the planning department and anyone else that cares to see them and we will inform war memorial so, no, you will not see something totally unsightly on the roof. it will be clearly better than what's there now, which is completely falling apart. i don't know if there's any other question i can respond to. >> is there an issue with accepting a condition of approval. >> as long as it dosment -- does not delay the project. as i said, the building is not getting any younger. >> in what way --. >> we want to get our permits through, we submited a site permit in april and because of

delays at various levels, including sick this particular board, we are very late. the project will not be reviewed by dbi until planning releases it so we need to move forward. we've come a long way since april. so we need to get approval to move forward and get our permit through. we can't do anything without a building permit. >> okay, i might ask someone else about the process and whether that would, whether you would encounter delays. . >> tim fry, department staff. i didn't --. >> i asked to a response to counsel for the appellant, which is if you are going to go ahead and have the mock up and have it run through your

department, why not have it a condition of approval on the permit itself? >> tim fry, department staff. that's exactly how we would play it out, we would ask dpw to apply for a permit for all the mock ups before we actually permit the full scope of work and the full set. >> i heard that there would be no issue with this as long as there would be no further delay. so what delay could one anticipate? >> our process is to have the subcontractor on board. our process is -- i just want to be clear -- subcontractors do the skylight, the roofing on board. they will do the mock up. they will not be on board until they bid the project in the early of next year, so then we will have them do the mock up immediately. >> it won't delay the process,

in other words. >> go ahead, ask any question you want. >> so the conditions were there should be mock up of the window we have and the terra cotta. >> right. >> but not the skylight. presumably those are all different subcontractors and they could be working simultaneously to provide the individual mock ups. do you know why the ca's did not include a mock up of the skylight? >> tim fry, department staff. it was within the department's analysis and the information that hpc reviewed, it was always presumed based on that documentation that the skylights would match as closely as possible. so if it's any additional reassurance, the findings in the motion made by the hpc presume that that work would match exactly. and if the work did not, well, they would be in violation of their c of a and subject to enforcement by the planning department. >> but you are saying there probably would not be an

additional delay if you got different subcontractors preparing different models. >> no, we would work with dpw it make sure they submit the mock ups as soon as they have those people on board. >> in that sense it doesn't delay it. if it's the process for the terra cotta, yeah, it will be the same process. >> okay, thank you. >> mr. fry, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal as well if you'd care to use it. >> tim fry, department staff. i have nothing else to add but if you have any questions i'm available. >> commissioners, baring any other questions, the matter is submitted. . >> i do have a question, i'm not sure to whom to address it, but clearly there's concern about getting these mock ups looked at by interested parties and i don't know that i heard

anything that kind of assures that there's proper notice given to interested parties. can somebody address whether, somebody that's been a party to the original application or whatever would notify that these mock ups are available for viewing? >> good evening, commissioners, i'm elizabeth murray, the manager director for the war memorial. that notification would come through my office and we provide notification to all of the american legion posts on various different issues and we would take care of that matter as well. we would, of course, provide the same notice to the other trust beneficiaries of that building. >> thank you.

is it just to address the question of notice, please. >> we're concerned we may not get notice. that's why we need the protection of the historic preservation staff. twice they have not given us notice. once a year ago when they issued a categorical exemption for ceqa, we got no notice whatsoever. we would have objected to it. and then again for the historic preservation commission, it was just happenstance that one member of the war memorial commission happened to see a notice scotch taped to the side of the veteran's building. then the historic preservation commission required the sponsor to give actual notice to the american legion posts. they lied over what notice really

requires. >> sir. >> tim fry, department staff. just to clarify, since the appeal was submitted the veterans have and the posts have applied for a block book notation on the site. when the mock up permits come in, we would be legally required to notice them once those permits are submitted. so at that time if they wanted to join us at the mock up review, they could do so at that time if they weren't happy with the conditions seen at the site they could also appeal that permit to the body. >> mr. fry, i'm confused by that comment. a mock up does not require a permit. >> because it's a condition of approval for the c of a, we would ask dpw to submit a separate permit for those mock ups because they would require an installation of a new window or the installation of a new skylight so we can compare it with the existing historic

skylights and windows side by side. >> i didn't see in the documentation any size requirement for the mock up. >> size requirement? >> yes. >> no, there was no size requirement. that is a detail we would work out with the applicant at the time of the permit. >> you want to hear some technical issues? >> sure. >> you know, it's interesting that they approach it that way because, yes, it's true that there are probably very few window manufacturers that fabricate steel these days. and most window and skylights are aluminium. however, if you look at what's being proposed here and the size of this band and

everything, these are all custom. there's nothing off the shelf about what's being proposed here. the question that came into the mind and it appears that, i don't, i'm not sure there's a big disagreement whether there should be a mark up of the skylight. traditionally there would have been some type of a submital that comes from the subthat shows either the extrusions, the type of glass and the type of finish. anyway, however small it is or however large it's requested by the drawings. when i first looked at the documents that's what prompted my question to mr. fry. there was nothing in those documents that showed the actual profiles and conditions of the existing. i'm sure they have it. however, what was provided to us did not show that.

if i look at the photos that were provided, and i look at the details that were provided, i'm not sure there was an exact correlation in terms of size of profile. when i look at the specifications i'm not sure that i see enough specifications that guarantee the type of finish they may want. that of course may come out as they do further iterations of their documents. we all know that construction documentation is a (inaudible) process and even at the final when they have it fully completed, never perfect but it gets closer. and then perhaps as they get through their addendum process they will have it detailed much more so. i didn't sense there was a big disagreement on having a mock up. i'm not sure. and i would

be inclined to include that as a condition on the hpc documents and i think that we should include in there some notice. i think you have organizations that are intimately involved with each other at the same facilities and i think they just need a little better communication. >> i appreciate the technical analysis. it is useful for my understanding of the issues and i think i am inclined similarly, given that there is no real objection here, to have them providing the mock up, having it go through historic preservation to condition -- and also having heard, there's no substantial or any measurable delay to be anticipated by having a condition of approval to have the same treatment with respect to the skylights as the other two conditions of approval. so

that would be my inclination as well. >> i'm in agreement and i believe we need 4 votes, so i would add mine to that. >> as would i. >> well, i'll move to uphold the permit on the condition --. >> you need to grant the appeal and uphold the motion, the hpc motion. >> okay. >> on the condition that it be revised as you wish. >> so i will grant the -- i move to grant the appeal and on the condition that the motion of the hpc be revised to reflect an additional condition of approval with respect to the skylights as discussed. don't know if i need to be more specific than that.

>> i have a couple recommendations. one would be perhaps if we look at conditions of approval no. 1, which talks about providing a mock up of the window rehabilitation that we could use that language but substitute the word window with the word skylight so that would provide a mock up of the skylight installation by (inaudible) as determined by staff. i don't know if that's exactly appropriate or not. >> (inaudible). >> sure, come up. >> their combined assembly. >> skylights and roof? okay,

does everyone understand that? hello? >> cary and company, we're the preservation architects. i respectfully disagree with inference that the windows and skylights are exactly the same situation. >> okay. >> the windows we're doing a very selective repair, so there it's very appropriate to do a window by window survey. >> okay. >> the skylights were already looked at and determined to be beyond repair. so they are being, we don't need to do or sgh does not need to do the same level of detailed survey work on the skylights that they did for the windows. the windows were detailed window by window, element by element. cary and company staff surveyed the hardware, it was a very --. >> i think we understand what you are saying. >> are we in agreement on that assessment? okay, great.

thank you for clarifying. i think the notice requirement is built in. they already have a bbn but also --. >> yeah. >> they have to, i mean, i think it's built in ?oo ?a so perhaps then to modify the language in the second sentence just to say the project sponsor shall provide additional information on the skylight and roof rehabilitation as determined by staff. >> okay. thank you for those suggestions. >> and i have one other, actually, that you might consider basing this motion on planning code section 1006.63. >> sure. >> which refers to preserving, enhancing and restoring, not damaging or destroying architectural features. it's in the --. >> yes, okay, thank you. is it to our motion? what --.

>> (inaudible) no. i apologize to the board because i was misled in believing that this meeting was pertaining to the relocation of veterans in this building. i'm sorry, i apologize. i will say one thing, i told you that one word. we got dollars one time to remodel that building and that money disappeared thanks to willy brown. accountability, please. >> i really appreciate that clarification, i was a little confused when you spoke earlier. thank you. >> you want to allow the appellant to speak, too? he's raising his hand. he's the appellant. >> but we've heard from different people representing the appellant already. we've heard from their engineer. >> (inaudible). >> sure, is there a problem?

>> you need to come to the speaker. >> nelson lum i would like the motion to include language that would require notification of the appellant when the mock up is -- and also we would have a chance for input. >> thank you. >> am i misunderstanding that notice is not going to be provided? i understood that notice was going to be provided. those are the representations made here. so if the mock up permit is submitted then notice will be required, correct? >> correct. just as a -- something to consider that notification based on the bbn listed with the property will occur once the permit application for the --. >> if there were no bbn, would notice be provided? >> no, that would be up to

miss murray to provide. >> there is a fee for having a bbn, isn't there? >> not for not for profits. >> terrific, thank you. i think we're okay with that as it is. >> so you ready for roll to be called? prrp mr. pacheco, do you need help with that motion or have you got it? >> so i believe the motion is from the president to grant this appeal on condition that the project sponsor shall provide a mock up of the skylight replacements and shall provide additional information on the skylight replacements as determined by staff. >> it's skylight and roof. >> skylight and roof. >> both instances. >> you mean grant the appeal, correct? victor, you mean grant the appeal. >> yes. what did i say? >> i think you said uphold the

motion or something. >> it's both, grant the appeal and uphold the motion. to grant the appeal, uphold the motion on condition the project sponsor shall provide a mock up of the skylight and roof replacement and we're amending that language, and shall provide additional information on the skylight roof replacement as determined by staff. what was the code section? >> 1006.63. >> on the basis of planning code section 1006.63. is that it? >> thank you. >> on that motion from the president, vice president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. the vote is

4-0, the motion is upheld with that condition and on that basis. >> okay, we're going to call the next item then, thank you. if you could leave the room quietly so we can move on with our business, that would be appreciated. this is item no. 7, appeal no. 12-082, rob ipbs steele versus zoning administrator. subject property is at 585 marina boulevard, appealing a letter of determination dated june 29, 2012, addressed to larry paul at la paul and associates, regarding the calculation of height for buildings with a 16 he will pitch shed roof and whether the proposed shed roof form complying with the planning code. we will start with the appellant, if you will please

step forward. is the appellant here? you have 7 minutes when you are ready. >> okay, larry paul, architect with la paul and associates representing robin steele in this appeal against the zoning administrator's letter of termination. our design as you can see features a 16 he will sloping

roof covering the entire building (inaudible) there is our building right here. these are the adjacent buildings off dividero street. it's one of two or three modern homes, most of the others are spanish mediterranean, something like that. the front portion of the house is similar to the adjacent neighbors but smaller and the adjacent 4-story house right over here is quite large and we are set back, whereas this one is not. in working with the planning department this house has gone through at least 5 or 6 different designs over the course of about 6 or 8 months

trying to resolve some of these issues and we've come to an impasse. we could not find any basis in the planning code for the comments that we were getting from the planning department so we had asked for review and a letter of determination from scott sanchez, zoning administrator, regarding the calculation of height. he gave that to us, he did not agree with us in how we calculate height, and yet he did not give us any firm code references or code sections that we could relay on, so that's why we are appealing this. the owners have become very frustrated by the delays caused by going through the planning department and not having any kind solid code reference to count on. specifically, the question is how the height of the building is measured. that's this right here. the

planning code section 268-2 states the height of the roof may be taken as the average rise of the roof or pitch or similar sculptured shed formment this is a pitched roof, it's similar to what you would expect in a mid-century modern house. there's nothing in the planning code or interpretations that require roof to cover the full width of the lot, yet that's one of the basis mr. sanchez' letter of determination that this in fact is two roofs, not one. it can be clearly seen this is one roof with one pitch, one slope, so you get one average height from the midpoint of the slope to the ground. and that results in a 34 foot, 10 inch height, which is below the 35 foot height limit. this is an rh1b zone which normally is 40 feet but is normally reduced to

rh1b, 35 foot height limit. mr. sanchez's letter of determination claims this is one roof form and this is a second roof form so they have to be averaged here, this one has to be averaged over here, this one has to be averaged here. there's nothing in the planning code that states that. there is quite little, in fact, in the planning code other than a couple sections, section 260. while we believe mr. sanchez has abused his discretion in applying the planning code to the way the measurements are --. >> mr. paul, could you hold on just a minute? could you call the sfg-tv folks? we have become the police commission. >> is it okay to go ahead now?

in our brief we've showed a number of photographs of at least 40 homes in the direct immediate marina neighborhood whose height exceeds the 35 and in some cases 40 feet. almost all these are 4 story homes. assuming an 8 foot ceiling height with a foot of floor structure, it gives you a 9 foot floor to floor height, 4 stories is 36 feet right there and most of the homes in the marina are not flat roofed homes, they are pitch roofed homes. some are older and they predate the 35 foot height limit but the 35 foot height limit has applied to a lot of more recent homes in the area that are 4 stories and exceed the 35 foot height limit. so i'm not sure exactly why this one has been singled out as not complying with the code but it