board. and if you would like i can read them into the record and if they are acceptable we can include them as the board's findings. >> are they similar to what was in the project sponsor's brief? >> i don't believe they are. i think that they are unique to what this case... >> why don't you read it. >> i will try to read quickly. >> so having heard all of the public testimony and reviewed the record in this matter, the board of appeals denies appeal 13-070 protesting the issuance of planning commission 18894, approving a planning code 309 determination of compliance and granting of acceptance for the mission street mexican museum towers project for the following reasons, based on the record which includes but is not limited to the environmental impact report for the project and the planning department findings, including

a statement of overriding considerations and the adoption of a mitigation and monitoring and recording program, the materials and testimony presented and available to this board for this hearing and the board finds that there is no new information of substantial importance to the projector changes or circumstances of the project is undertaken and including the reduction and height of the project that will change the conclusions of the planning commission in certifying the eir or such determination in such a way to require the additional review under the california quality act. the said record is in the reference and two, the board adopts as its own, the planning commission, findings which include the rejection of the project alternatives as a feasible and adoption of the overriding consideration and adopts the program, all is set forth in the planning commission, 18875, and said planning commission motion and

the sequa findings in this motion by reference. >> i accept those findings as part of my motion. >> okay. thank you. >> and then if you could call the roll. >> we have a motion and then from commissioner fung to deny the appeal and up hold the section 309 determination of compliance. on the basis that the planning commission did not err in interpretation of the planning code or abused the discretion and with the sequaa finding is red into the record. on that motion. president absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> honda? >> thank you. >> the vote is 4-0, and the section 309 determination of compliance is upheld on that basis and with those findings, thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sure, i think that we... >> yes. >> we will take a five minute

recess. thank you. >>

>> the meeting of the san francisco board of appeals and i am happy to welcome our city attorney robert brian and we are calling item 5, appeal number 1 3-066. gregory peters, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval1360 dolores street. protesting the issuance on may 16, 2013, to emily & aaron quinn, permit to alter a building (new one-story addition at front of building with new terrace at 2nd floor; renovation of 1st floor bathroom; renovation of exterior landscaping, stairs and entry; no changes to north and west elevations). application no. 2012/02/23/4735. for hearing today >> good morning my name is (inaudible) and i represent peters who live in the property adjacent and i want to express the support of the project because it will be a terrific

improvement to the property and this neighborhood. >> it is 6 feet above the grade of mr. peter's property and supported by the region that runs along the northern property line of mr. peter's property. mr. peter's filed this appeal because he knew that the building and the department and the supplying department and all of the permit holders have addressed mr. peter's questions regarding the impact of the project on his retaining foundation wall. it outlines the project and does not address the reviews of mr. peter's retaining wall and foundation. and in fact, the plan was engineered without reviewing

this retaining wall which is visible only from mr. peter's garage. >> and i have a picture of the wall. that is the wall and that goes on top. >> that way? >> okay. >> mr. peters wants the permit application to reflect the impact that does not retaining wall is going to sustain from the amount and the effect of the additional load that is going to be created by this addition to property and if any. and but the depth of the excavation and the method whether by hand or using missionary, and findings of the

type, and the soil for filling is going to be compressed and the details of the hard surfaced landscaping and the details of the treatment of water run off between the run hour wall and mr. peter's north wall. and for section 311 of the san francisco code, mr. peters is entitled to information about the project so that has consumed about the project that identifies and resulted in the permit review process. by the same token this information should be included in the building permit because it is material to the project that is undertaken by the quinns but what actually happened during the permit review process is that the planning department advised him that they review the plans to insure the code and suggested that reviewing the plans to evaluate the physical structural impact on the adjacent properties not in the

scope of the purview. if neither the building department or the building department include in the record potential structure to the additional properties to improve and the property owner like mr. peters have? it is not like such situations in san francisco and it should be a routine matter to take note and note and take the pro-active steps before the disaster happens. >> as obvious on the appeal mr. peters and asked the questions of the details that the proper planning will revent or limit the potential damage and as reflected in the beef over the past year and a half and they have defined to provide information or have provided selective information and hence, mr. peters and respectfully requests that the building permit and requests the permit holder to take into

account of his retaining wall and resolve the tests and the reviews should be made and resolve which line items of the requested information in the brief are provided to mr. meters in a timely manner and take off the amount. and he suggested the range endured structural mitigation design and solution and the city take a critical line and the observation of the project construction for compliance. before i end, and i would like mr. nolty to speak and i would like to address one issue that they raised in the brief that mr. peters should have started the discussion at either of you

and the planning staff advised him that it would not have the issues and should bring them up during the building of the permit process and this i asked mr. nolty. >> keep that here. >> my name is bob nelky, and commissioner, and vice president lazarus and commissioners, i'm a consultant to be the property owner and mr. greg peters, the neighbor. and i would like to focus on this wall. it is pretty in weak by the standards and kur nt standards and it is efervesing and i was... >> and it is also has cracks in it and it is old. we don't know if it has any rebars in it and it is likely that it was. the wall serves as a foundation wall and the house is built on

the wall and but the continue of the wall is really a primary concern here and that is all that we are really here about. we want and we are concerned about the seepage and the further cracks in the walls and so the concern is that over the review of the planning process, it is going to be used by the permit holder to install the piers along... >> 30 seconds. >>vy i have to wind up. we are trying to avoid the problems in the future and that is why we are here today and this is the appropriate time to deal with these issues is at this time, before our construction begins, not after the fact, or even during the construction, thank you very much. >> mr. nolky. the photo that was shown to us, shows a column that looks much more recent than the wall itself, was there an upgrade done to this? >> not to my knowledge.

nothing has been done, could i ask the owner? >> my name is greg peters and i am the owner of the asquai sent property. >> it looked like the column was relatively newer than the concrete wall. >> correct. >> but i thought that i heard you say that it was installed 20 years ago? >> correct. >> counselor for the appellant? >> can you... no, thank you. >> can you refer us to the list of information specific with that you asked for? >> exhibit 16?

>> it is subsection bon page 7. and it lists all of the information that we have requested. and so this report is number 1. and this is subsection b? >> that is on page 7. line 22? >> line 21 in >> those are reported mentioned on the following page. okay. >> continue. >> and this test at 3 points. and we have the base line survey documentation already. laser point measurement and then there was information that in a letter to the quinn's

counsel and that is attached as exhibit m. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> vice president, lazarus. members of the board, denny shanaher for the permit holders, this is a small project, 186 gross square feet and there is minimal to no excavation work that is a part of this project. the addition is at grade, there are three hand dug piers two feet by three feet that are going to be installed to support an on grade stairwell at the south side of the property. and that is the extent really the of excavation that would potentially have any impact on the appellant's wall. and we don't think and there is no evidence or indication to us

that that or those three hand-dug holes for the three piers will have any impact on the walls. we do have a structural engineer, for the project here, if you would like to speak or hear from him and we do have the project architect here as well. and we have been very respectful of the concerns of the apell apartment over the process. and our engineer has met at least twice with their consultants, and our architects have met with him, and our firm has met with him and we have exchanged information, and we have offered and finally have accepted our offer to put monitoring base line monitoring sense censors to make sure that if there is a shaking or resettlement as a result of the project that we could address it is he appropriate time and again, we have felt that we have been respectful of the concerns with respect to the wall. and we don't believe that the

project will impact it and we have seen no evidence or indication from any engineer reports or anything that we will. and but nonetheless, i have been happy to install the necessary monitoring devices to make sure that if there is any impact that we address them during the construction, i will address any questions that you have. >> i am sorry, make i misunderstood, is there any engineering reports that there will be an impact? >> no. >> this is all speculative? >> i believe so. >> like i said, anything that we are doing is three hand dug piers that go below the property to support an on grade stairwell. >> our engineers indicated then that your new piers will not surcharge against a wall? >> not at all. and that, by the way, the piers were the request of the dbi, and they wanted the piers to go

lower and to be more substance to support the stairs. and no impact on the retaining walls expected. it was about a foot away at least. i will address any of the questions any of the others if you have them. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department and i will be briefed on the item, the application was submitted on january 23rd last year of 2012 and it is for a horizontal addition of the front of the budget building and it underwent section 311 notification for november first to december first during that time, the neighbor did contact planning department and stated the concerns and many of those concerns and the planning reported they were all related to more activities and there were a list of concerns that included the concerns about the park vehicles and the construction schedule and nothing that would rise to a

level of requiring a discretionary review and addressing anything in the planning code. and they said that they were in support on the pro-yekt project. more related to the concerns of the construction and those are not in the purview of the planning department and not appropriate to have those matters at a planning commission hearing and those appropriate to resolve those first to the department building inspection who will review the plans and insure that the plans meet the relevant building requirements and also, some ex-at the present time of the construction project there is a civil element as well where the matters may need to be resolved to the courts. >> and submit that and i am available for any questions that the board may have. thank you. >> thank you.

good evening, commissioners, anthony (inaudible) department of building inspection and this certify mitt was a submitted permit on a form three. and it went through the standard review and the proper sequence of reviews. and through going the plan check under the building, one of the civil engineers reviewed the pro-yekt and had it on hold for comments that were responded to and found acceptable and then it was approved. as indication with any permit that we issue for anyone to construct the owner of the property is required to maintain safe and san tarry condition and the responsibility is with the builder and the owner of the property if the condition that resulted from the excavation or any of the work our department will respond and issue a proper notice of violation to either both a property owners if it was a shared retaining wall. and at this point, again, looking at this permit