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 has and we feel it was done unfairly. we believe that the design does correctly calculate the 35 foot height limit as the average of this sloping roof. there's another code section in table 260 in section 260-a-3 that there has be a maximum width for the portion of the building and structure to be measured from a single point at curb or ground levelment that is for determining the height of a facade, a building facade, particularly the street facade. it's not oriented to the side facade but even if you applied it that way, this would apply to our case because we are on a

flat lot and a flat lot has no requirement for a maximum width that you could take for the calculation of height. so this portion of the roof is the same as this portion of the roof, it's the same slope, it just doesn't go the full depth of the house. if that's what was required, the roof would end up, the roof would end up looking like this. we could do this. but we chose not to do this. >> i don't understand your visual. >> okay, this would be --. >> i think your model would be more effective if you turn it toward the commissioners. >> towards you? >> yes. okay, so --. >> this is the current designed roof. >> uh-huh. >> and mr. sanchez is claiming

this is two separate roofs because of the notch right here. if we did not notch that roof, it would be like this, this line represents the halfway point that averages so it's exactly the same except that we have notched out this roof right here. this to me is a single roof, this to me is a 16 he will roof. but to mr. sanchez it's two roofs. i don't understand how he comes up with that interpretation. there's nothing in the code that refers to that. he in his respondant brief has not cited any code references. we have done extensive research in the planning code and talking to separate planners and going through case file after case file, i have not found any previous interpretation like this. no precedent for this, even, that would indicate that this is the proper interpretation of the code.

and so that's why we ask that you find that he erred in his interpretation and that he abused his discretion in the letter of determination and uphold our appeal and grant 35 foot -- the way we are calculating the average of the single roof. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. as noted the subject property is at 585 marina boulevard, it's located in an rh1b district. the application that we were

reviewing now was submitted last december and it constitutes a rear horizontal addition. they are compliant with the rear yard requirement, they are extending out to the 25 percent rear yard. however, in adding the floor and adding the fourth floor they are not compliant with the planning code requirement for 35 foot height limit. the planning code section 261 establishes additional height limits, even though the mapped height limit for the district is 40 feet, planning code section 261-b says no portion, and i'll repeat that again, no portion of a dwelling in rh1d shall exceed a height of 35 feet. so i think it's very clear to note it is no portion. the applicant has provided even in their submital one of the sections that does show that the building will exceed a

height of 35 feet so this is where we come to the argument here and i appreciate the appellant's arguments, but would respectfully disagree with their assertion that we would somehow ignore the provision of the code that says no point or no portion of the building can exceed a height of 35 feet. planning code section 260 gives further guidance how to measure the height, especially when you are irregular roof forms. it says you would take the average of the points. the upper point of the measurement is taken at the highest point of the finished roof. in the case of the flat roof and the average of the rise in the case of a pitch (inaudible) roof form. when measuring the height of the building using that code provision, it's well above the 35 foot height limit. much has been made about the context here and i think to be fair it's not a question of design guidelines, this is not a question of whether or not the project complies with the

residential design guidelines, it's a question of whether it complies with the planning code. the subject permit has been filed, the department is reviewing it, it would still be subject to neighborhood notification, i know there's concerns from at least one of the adjacent neighbors, there could be a dr and further discussion there. there are buildings that predate the code, so they are legal pre-existing properties. immediately behind this is a building that is uniquely the stretch on marina which is subject to the rh1d zoning district and this further height limit. there's also been reference to 565 marina boulevard, which was a case that was going to be before this board several years ago when i first became zoning administrator, there were complaints the building was being build above the height limit. there were several surveys done of the property, it turns out that they had actually built