that we do. for this city, and the rest of this country. so today, i ask you look in your conscious and do what is right, thank you. >> next speaker please? >> president lazarus, and commissioners. my name is rick smith and i live at 680 mission which is across the street from the project site and i am against the appeal and i am grateful for the potential of the coming of the mexican museum in the neighborhood and for the negotiated and the pedestrian open space benefits that were done as part of the purchase agreement and both president chiu who has expressed serious concern about the dancing shadow in union square and the enforcement of prop k in parks throughout the city and the concern for this project i heard expressed with the land use commission and the july 23rd board of supervisors meeting has been that the parties be able to resolve the differences and as we heard she

voted for the project to move forward, thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, we will open rebuttal and you have three minutes. >> thank you, members of the board. the primary point that i want to make is that my clients don't oppose the mexican mu museum and it is an interesting strategy for the developer to align with a worthy cause with the museum because the developer can stay in the background while the eloquent and worthy allies of the development make the case for the developer. but let's not forget that the developer stands to make at least $120,000 million by his own economic analysis estimate. as far as shadow is concerned, this is not really a legal argument and more of a public relations issues that have been raised the transbay project and

the transit center project had seven buildings with 0.19 percent to allocate between them which is less than 0.03 each and this is one building, 0.06 and so in terms of one building, occupying or causing shadow, on this park, it dwarfs any of the other buildings in the transit center project area plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> i think that the arguments are well stated so i will not go through rehashing those and i think that you have heard a lot of the additional detail that i did not have time for, for the planning staff and just in terms of the policy comparison to transbay i just wanted you to be aware that this project as a ro bust

benefits package that has been negotiated both of the result of the property convey ens from the agency and as a result of the planning department process and without getting into details, there is public benefit package associated with that project is amount 120 million and includes the substantial funding for the mexican museum and the shell at no cost of the city and museum but also a 5 million dollar operating endowment and what is the highest in the city and the additional 8 percent on the 20 percent requirement will be made available for affordable housing and the project will also reteam approximately 43 million dollars worth of agency and city debt related to the parking garage and so the public benefit package here is undeniably extremely robust and i think also, comes into consideration, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. guy.

>> i don't have anything further to add but again i am just available to answer any questions that you may have on the 309 appeal or the section 295 process. thank you. >> thank you. >> so commissioners, baring any further questions, the matter is submitted. >> i guess that the oldest always get to go first. >> and the either this is the interesting case that comes before us in the sense that it is complexities are a littles bit different than the issues that we face here.

and to digest the years of effort and processes into one meeting that as of a few hours at the most and it is quite interesting for the decision making that can occur. on the other hand the question of what our charge is to see whether planning commissions erred. or whether they abused their discretion or powers. and that we can respond to on a fairly subjective basis and applying it however to a cost process and a project like this, is it was not so easy. and the spending 6 hours to review the package does not do

that much good in terms of i am trying to understand the total process that has been through it and however a couple of things have become clear in my mind, any way. one is that the issue of the shadow of the additional shadow and therefore, the correlation with the over all envelope and the scope of the development that was allowed i think was well addressed by the commission, i think that it was it was well addressed by staff. and i have been accepted that you produced the issue and one of the other issues brought up here and it was one that was very clear in my mind and looking at it. and the specialty consultants

on economic analysis real estate projections and allowed those and i found disagreementwise both sides and both in terms of the good to know analysis, and done by the planning department. and i found that a couple of things that seriously contrary to the real estate position in san francisco. but, all of that said, either it appears that the did not err or did not abuse and i am prepared to deny the appeal and up hold the 309 determination. >> i don't have much more to add. i am in agreement with that

conclusion. and i also agree with challenging case to look at and very time consuming but i did not really see anything that would persuade me that there was a misinterpretation of the code. i go that it took eleven hours and not six. >> and after going back and forth and that adds to the additional five hours. >> they did not abuse or err in their power as well. >> those that are interpreting the ordinance and how it will be implemented and how it

seemed to me that that was given to the due consideration and that the qualitative criteria were evaluated and to the determination. and it is not a basis for over turning a decision. >> i believe i am prepared to move that the appeal be denied that the 309 determination be upheld and i believe that through that, we would also have to adopt sequa finding? >> that is correct. >> and that would also be good to state a basis there was no error of interpretation or abuse of discretion and i do have draft findings for the 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 it was reviewed and issued. and according to our code. >> and properly. >> and i believe that the code requires that new structure cannot surcharge against an adjacent neighbor's structure, isn't that correct? >> the foundation analysis in many cases there is shared foundations throughout the city and each property has an adjoining property providing the lateral support. and the foundation plan and the calculation and design will need to comply with the code and those issues with the property rights. and so, there is a consideration of whether the foundation is but the analysis would be to support their own building. within their own property. and not be able to surcharge against it. >> no surcharges could occur.

and they do. generally speaking there is a 45 degree bearing area for the foundation that is going to spread out and so you will get the support from the adjacent building and property. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, i will start our rebuttal. you have three additional minutes. >> i heard they come through him say that they had some engineering reports that we have not seen them that is what we have been asking, we have been asking for the reports as engineering reports, and we have just wanted to know, what the status is. i mean, how have these studies have been done and if they have provided this to us, then we will and then mr. peters requested them, i