it looks and certainly we would welcome comments on it. we are most concerned so, yes, we will do a mock up. we want the person who is going to build the thing will do the mock up, there's no point in us having --. >> will the mock up be under review by the preservation staff? >> yes, when we gt our environmental reviews the preservation staff is going to be intimately involved in every aspect of the project including tim fry because they are also experts. >> what is the timeline? you said you need to get the subcontractor. >> the timeline is really critical. we are in the middle of our construction documentsment we expect to start construction july 1st,

2013. we now have a few months for bidding and awarding of subcontract to finish our document. delaying the project, you know, the building is deteriorating as we speak. it's going to have to go through this winter, we don't want it to go through many more. so a delay would be disasterous for the building and the project. aside from the seismic issues, which is something else again. >> is it safe to assume the other mock ups have not been done? >> no. i mean it is safe to assume that because we will have the terra cotta mock up done when we have a terra cotta sub on board. we really need the workmen who are going to make the things to do the mock up and we need that. we're not just going to let somebody throw stuff up there. we're not going to be careless about

it. >> even though the certificate of appropriateness does not require you as a condition to do the mock up, you are going to do it and be subject to preservation review. >> yes. >> and how do you make that available, you said anyone can see it. what's your normal -- what would be the process for allowing anyone to access that information? >> well, we are going to have the planning, the preservation coordinators in the planning department involved with the project through our construction, so we will call them and say we have the mock up, come and see it and get their input. we certainly would do that with anyone from the american legion post, absolutely. >> and how would you do that? by notice? would you call them, public notice somewhere? >> we can tell the war memorial that the mock up is ready. we have a list of all the mock ups and the shop

drawings and so on in a trailer on site, it will be very evident when things are going on. we can phone the war memorial and they can inform the post if they want to come and see the skylight. >> your project delivery system on this is a traditional one, design then build? >> no, we are using the construction manager way of doing it which allows us to get a general contractor on board early and then the general contractor works with that during a preconstruction period. we just got the general contractor on board, pan co builders, they literally started last week, and they will work with us till july 1st of 2013 to develop prequalified subcontractors, discuss constructability, look at the schedule and develop some cost estimates. from about february to june of

2013 we will be bidding the subcontract so those will be just straight bids. we have the advantage using this method of project delivery of having the general contract rr on board early. we are also going to be testing materials, you know, lifting up some invasive destruction of certain areas to see what's behind to, you know, look at unforeseen conditions. we don't want to be surprised during construction. we have not a very long construction period of two years to do a lot of very careful work, so that's why we have this -- it's called a cmgc >> understood. schedule wise, if you are at 50 percent construction documents you are not going to be able to have submock ups until sometime at the earliest middle of next year. >> right, we want the subcontractors on board, but they won't be able to do anything. and part of that contract would be to do a mock up. you know, as you know,

mock ups are often rejected. they have to be approved before they can go forward, so we're very collaborative and we'll be working with them. much of the team, including sgh, was on the opera house which we did and we know we have to work closely with, especially the specialty subcontractors and this is actually quite a complicated situation at the roof. so it's going to be very interesting but we feel confident it's going to work simply because we have better technology today. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the historic preservation representative, mr. fry. >> good afternoon , president wong, members of the board, tim fry, staff to the historic preservation commission. before i dive into the historic preservation commission's review and

approval process associated with this c of a, i did want to address the question asked about process and phasing of the permit. planning staff will be intimately involved because there are two conditions of approval with this c of a that require the department preservation staff to review mock ups and this is part of the phasing of the building permit application process. so what would normally happen is dpw would submit their permits to planning department staff for review. we'll phase that approval, the approvals and the work associated with those permits, to allow us to go out and review the mock ups, make sure everything is according to what was approved by the commission, and once that work is approved by staff then we will issue the final approval for our permit. so there is sort of a stop gap measure there that allows us to review the permit and the conditions of approval and make sure everything is in accordance to the original c of a

to clarify, there is not a condition of approval imposed by the commission that requires us it review the skylights, but because we will be so involved with the project i don't think that the motion holder or the department have any issue reviewing the skylights as well and reporting back to either this board or to the historic preservation commission or to the appellants on the compatibility of those new skylights. to go back one step, though, and talk about each pc's purview and review process related to this entitlement, per article 10 of the planning code, the hpc has review authority over any exterior alterations to the building. when the hpc makes a decision or issues a certificate of appropriateness regarding work, they have to find that the project meets the secretary of the interior's standards.

the standards are a philosophical standard used by many (inaudible) they are meant to illustrate best practices when doing work on a historically or architecturally significant building. so while there are some discrepancies in the drawings, the planning department's case report to the commission always was very clear that based on the documentation submitted that the roof structure, the skylights and the existing roof membrane were all severely deteriorated and would require replacement. so the commission had all of that information when weighing their decision whether or not to approve the skylights. they also did have the skylight details which they felt was sufficient and showed the work was going to be executed according to the standard. and to speak briefly about the standards and particular standard 6 does allow for substitute materials like aluminium to be used when

steel was the historic material, and that is generally allowed when a feature is so deteriorated beyond repair it requires wholesale replacement. in this case, as long as the aluminium skylights match all exterior profiles, dimensions, scale, that substitute material is consistent with other applications on historic buildings and other c of a's that the hpc has approved in the past. with that, i'm happy to answer any other questions. again, we're happy to review the skylights as well if that is the only issue raised by the apolice department, but the department on behalf of the hpc does respectfully request that you uphold the hpc's decision on the c of a >> did the department analyze the proposed detailing as consistent with what is existing both in profile and

finish? >> with the drawings and the documentation provided by the motion holder we were able to examine the profiles of the skylights where it would closely match. sometimes it's very difficult to get an exact match. but considering their location, the height above grade which an average member of the public would be viewing these skylights, they were not going to have a discernable change from the public rights of way and, again, based on the documentation we felt they were a close map and they were certainly in compliance with the standards. >> i have a question on the preference for the aluminium frame skylight system versus the steel. based on your evaluation, in this assessment was it determined that steel is simply an inferior possible

solution? >> even with the standards it's generally preferred to use the historic materials, so i think in this case if steel was proposed that would be a preferred option. but it is not inconsistent to propose aluminium as long as those profiles match. again, as long as it looks the same and it's a metal material and there won't be any sort of incompatible issues with different metals rubbing up against each other along the roof line. the commission didn't find that there was any issue with that. often the commission approves aluminium-clad windows in historic districts for maintenance purposes as long as they match the historic profiles, so this was a similar application. >> thank you. >> thank you. so we'll take public comment now. can i see a show of hands how many people intend to speak on this item, if you'd raise your hand?

okay, great. we can have the first speaker step forward and if you are able to line up on the far side of the room, that would be helpful just to expedite the process. if you can did that. anyone else can line up, that would be really helpful to move things along. also if you want to fill out a speaker card to present to mr. pacheco, that will help in the preparation of minutes. if you haven't done so before, you can fill one out after you come up it speak. president wong, three minutes? >> yes, sorry, 3 minutes. >> thank you so much, good afternoon. i'm just offering a testimony of one person. i've been very, very blessed to be born in san francisco and

served in world war ii and my father served in world war i. so i feel like, you know, if you look back that we have some kind of background here to talk about. without getting into detail, i just wish that you please listen to the voices of people who served in the military and put our lives on the line and that is all really i have to say. i hope you back up the testimony that is coming from the other members. my name is paul gorky, i was one of 35,000 babies delivered at st. luke's hospital by the great doctor arnot in his lifetime, he lived to be 95 and brought that many

babies into the world. so, anyway, look at this testimony just that much. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. next each member of the public will be allotted the same number of minutes to speak, except that public speakers using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony time limit. if simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public testimony time limit., please. >> good afternoon, i am james mcconnell, i am a proud gay veteran and i'm here today to say please, we're veterans, we served that country. that building is rightfully ours. do what we ask, not what outsiders, any political influence does. listen to us veterans, please. thank you. >> each member of the public will be allotted the same number of minutes to speak, except that public speakers using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony time limit. if simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public . >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm mario benfield, first commander of the 8th district of san francisco. like the other two veterans that spoke earlier, may post, post 44 ailt, has

great has a great stake in this building across the street. we are the first gay post in the country. the second point i want to say is the plans presented today here are too indefinite and contradict each other. the third point, these problems create the risk that the skylights won't be replaced properly. and the fourth point is if the historic preservation staff don't retain control, our building may be defaced. and as a general contractor myself i think it's important when you

-- and nothing against the general contractor that's going to head up the construction across the street, but it's important that the subcontractors that he chooses already have some of this, all these mock ups on hand because they are experienced in it, they've done the wrk in the past so i was kind of confused why it was taking so long to see some mock ups. the building across the street withstood the 89 earthquake with just plaster damage. we need to see the material, we can handle it before they put it in the building and i think that's our main concern. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. are there any other member s of the public who wish to speak. >> commissioner, i am a veteran. i do not know the skylight or whatever, you know, the building, but i do know that the veterans fought many war. american veterans. and we stick together. that's how we win and that's how we come back alive to our country. and i heard so many of my fellow comrades, i urge you to follow the sentiments and okay whatever the veterans want. oh, we earn it because we are

a country, its power us and we are proud to be american and we are proud to have fought for our country. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, members of the board, my name is richard surez, i was born here in san francisco. i joined post 333, the aviation floyd, which was the floyd bennett post, back in 1987 and i thought, well, the first thing i want to do is i want to learn about the american legion. a little synopsis of back grupbld on the american legion which was formed in 1918 by the officers of the 91st division that fought in world war i. in 1918, the performing arts wanted a new opera house and

they thought they'd pass this bill. well, it didn't pass because the people of san francisco wanted caberets and houses of ill repute. but when the troops came home from the 91st division, they thought, what better organization to put our proposition on their coattail, so they passed the veterans war memorial building back in 1922. and in 1932, they dedicated that building for the veterans as trustees and the performing arts. but over the years when i joined, i wanted to find out what's going on in this building? i always wanted the most important word that i found in any administrative job i've had was one word, accountability. i wanted it know where all that money went, all those wonderful archives, those antique vases that were

given to the veterans memorial building, and all of a sudden it dawned on me from the old timers that had been in there, one of the old men in there was a gentleman by the name of ed sharky. whatever collusion went on over the years, there was a coca-cola fund which millions of dollars disappeared, the naubl (inaudible) fund, that disappeared, now they want to build another building between the opera house and the war memorial and i'm wary about it, whatever you build, you have to have accountability. money has a tendency to grow feet and disappear. now the performing arts want to relocate, take away that building which they have been trying for years to do, because of one factor, money. but in the trust, i've read it completely, all the way through, it's about 3 inches thick, it states that as long as there is an american legion

veteran crawling in the hallway they could never take away that building from us. and you are the curators, the people who are going to watch over us and the children. when you watch the parades going down market street and coming up and passing by city hall and they all salute you, they are honoring you because they know that you will take care of them if they ever have to serve their country. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? no other public comment then we will move into rebuttal and we will start with the appellant. you have three minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to start with mr. fry --. >> you can use the other mic if you'd like to lack at your notes. >> i'd like to start with mr.

fry's ending remark, that the drawings were consistent with the current profile and so forth and that steel is preferred. the problem that caused us it take this appeal is the drawings are inconsistent with each other. and this is not just a case of the a drawings being dated a year before the submission to the historic preservation commission because in fact the drawings, copies of which are attached to our brief on appeal, date from both february of this year and april of this year. and what really causes the concern if you take a look at exhibit 14 of the brief on appeal, it's the source of the respondant's

figures 1 through 4 and i invite you it look at each of those figures. none of them is the length, width, whether the corners are 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.