>> thank you. >> thank you. >> sure, i think that we... >> yes. >> we will take a five minute recess. ank 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 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 noti 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 guess over the last year and a half. and so, the reason that the appeal was filed and those list of 20 questions was presented to the points was because they were being so selective in what they wanted to share. and mr. peters was only doing what he would do as a good property own and her that is the most expensive that he owns and he knows that it is a 98 year old wall and he knows that it has problems and there is we heard the dbi say that there is a 45 degree angle where the load was disbursed and when you have appeared that within 3 inches of the property line.

and i guess that the angle is safety. so we, it would make an impact on our, or on the north retaining wall and the second issue is that by law, and they are entitled for the lateral support from mr. peter's property but that is only for the unimproved property but not for any load on the property. and from the improved structure and here they are adding to the improvement. and which is going to add at dishal load to his wall. >> vice president lazarus, and the commissioners bob pelty.

the work is at the front of the property and they are going to do it and a beautiful landscaping plan with 1,000 and planters and so on and so forth, but there is quite a bit that there is a good amount of earth that is going to be moved around and there is going to be equipment up there and there is going to be a lot of movement and that is why we simply wanted to discuss this with the owners and pretty much that too. >> mr. nolty? what specifically do you still need technically? >> we would like to talk to the engineer. i have not talked to the engineer on this. i have talked to mr. santos, but that was over a different matter. we would like to talk to these people and ask the engineer the questions. and get them resolved.

>> dealing with the vibration and the impacting and the types of soil being used and what are the things that are going to happen here and exactly how much earth is going to be moved and moved where? and that is all that we want is just the answer to the questions. >> okay, thank you. >> mr. shanaher in three minutes. >> what i said was that we did not have any engineer telling us that there was any lateral load that would be added. all of the work that is being done at grade. and there is no excavation, other than to create the room for the ground for addition to be moved out. we have offered for months and years, before this appeal was filed, to have meetings between the engineers. and the architect has met him. and we have had communications and writing with the appellant. of our meetings he has been supportive of the project as he has mentioned here tonight. and i think that we are dealing

with phantoms here in terms of speculation about what might happen with respect to this project. we have agreed to monitor the project and the retaining wall to see if in fact there is impact which we don't believe that there will be we will address it through the monitoring and equals that we are undertaking with respect to the project and address them at that time and i don't know how else to respond. because it is a never ending series of questions which they are only speculating on what might happen with the project. >> you indicated that there two. >> how deep? >> to the bottom of the appellant's foundation? >> how deep?

>> roughly? >> i don't know, how deep do they want? >> the stairs that are being put into the side of the property and it is not going to increase the load in any shape or load to the existing property and the existing soil and the pressure on the wall stays the same. >> i mean, the engineer could address, our engineer is happy to address. >> okay, shortly. >> the microphone, thank you. >> the whole point is to aoe leave ant the grade of the stairs and you put it on top of the soil and you add the weight and the 45 degree angle and it surcharges the angle and now in

eliminate that surcharge we are doing to add the piers and there are columns that go all the way down and meet the footing and 12 inches to the neighbor's footing they are spaced far apparent and it also eliminates the surcharge. >> and any done here? >> the borrings were done by the engineer. >> and so they have the report. >> yeah. okay. >> and if you understand, now, they are going to create the columns and supporting of it and all the way out and there is no surcharge. on the foundation. >> any other questions for the permit holder? >> no. >> anything from the department?

>> we require it to go to sacramento, and it was not required unless the engineer evaluated and did the plan check would have required it based on the submital. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is subpoena mitted. >> i have not seen anything in the papers to convince me that there is a (inaudible) to the wall and it seems speculative

to me. i would be willing to consider to petition the permit on the ongoing monitoring of some sort in order to prevent any kind of impact in the future and i don't see any impact at this point in time. >> i also agree. and unfortunately having been a part of a dr situation, or personally i understand, how this is effecting both parties. but, we at this time can't rule on something that is speculative. and i believe that the permit holders have responsibly done what they need to do, to add this improvement to the property. and so i would, you know, i agree with my fellow commissioner. >> yeah, i would concur with that position. i think that the structure that

their attitude is considered or relatively light or considered in relationship to the structure and therefore, it is not likely to create the issues that are the problems that have been described. >> does anybody care to make a motion? >> i am going to move to deny the appeal and up hold the permit as issued. >> i mean if you want to state a basis? that you know, >> that it is code compliant for the department of building inspection? >> okay. >> thank you. >> when you are ready. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung, to deny the appeal and up hold this permit on the basis that it is cold compliant.

on that motion, president hwang is absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 4-0, and the permit is upheld on that basis, thank you. >> thank you. >> so, we will now call item 8, appeal 13.089 jeff & tracey schlarb, appellant(s) vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2823-2827 greenwich street. appealing a revocation request dated july 15, 2013, requesting that alteration permit nos. 2012/01/24/2796, 2012/04/18/8561, and 2013/06/18/9812 at the subject property be revoked because they were improperly issued and resulted in the removal of one dwelling unit without proper review under the planning code. for hearing today.

>> good evening, members of the board and thank you for your time tonight, i am here representing the appellants in this appeal. i know that you have seen our brief and it contains very concise chronology of the events. and so i want to emphasize a few quick points and i think that it is best that you hear from the appellant directly and then we can answer any questions that you might have and the things that i wanted to stress are that the appellants in this case have not engaged in an active to circumvent the procedures, when they bought the property it was marketed as a two unit building with an legal third unit and it was characterized as a two unit relying on the information. and the tenants that had a lease for that unit, filed the

jurisdiction request and so the board did hear the underlying merit to the desired appeal and ultimately the board rejected the request. and what is important, though, is at that hearing, it was established and determined that this building was in a 2 rh zoned space and so that it is significant and significant with that zoning that this is a two unit only building, pursuant to the permit they removed the illegal unit. and ub consequently more than a year later after all worse being compared and the recommendation to revoke the permits which we understand why it came out and i want to emphasize that it will be unjust to act on that suggestion. they have to be able to