to martin ron, of the three surveys, had all done surveys, the devisidaro, the washington and our property, look at them they all show the same thing, the walls are not on your property, you don't need a survey there's already been three surveys, as we started discussing with the neighbors, saying, hey these sit under your wall the washington wall goes passed our property all the way to the street it doesn't stop where the red lines show same with devisidaro. because their properties sit directly on top of these walls. there is also a document here -- i don't quite know how to do this. >> it will show up. there it is. >> i believe is a record of the city, and it showed -- i can't quite see what i'm looking at. the property on -- where is devisidaro? this one here, is

the devisidaro property. this one is the washington property. our property sits here. this is the corner property they built a large garage. this shows in 1895, the washington property sits there. this shows a property in devisidaro. this shows on 1901, there is no building on the corner building the condition that we have been built there since the earthquake is conjecture and pure speculation. these walls are on our property, of course, they're encroaching on our property, but they're failing in the air, as vegetation and water is coming through the wall they're failing, and i will say that the washington street property the building on the wall i let their painters in four years ago to paint the top of their wall so they're saying

the top of the wall is theres to maintain and paint but what they sit on is not there?s it doesn't make any sense. >> thank you for your time. >> may i see the exist? >> of course. can i approach? >> yeah. >> any questionses from the commissioners? >> i have a question for chief aspect inspector lowrey he did the inspection. when we look at pictures like this where did you shoot the pictures? you were in the adjacent property right? >> right. adjacent to the

properties, there is a walk way. okay this is the wall, the picture you will see is the washington street wall. over here, then the other wall that you see is a devisidaro street side wall goes the length of the building there. >> that is public access? >> yes. there is egress out of the building in the back area there. >> i have a question for the city attorney. there is two parts to this request. one is to put into abeyance, but also name the third property, is that within our jurisdiction? is there something we can do, they have not been through the

process of the directors here and everything else. >> i will revise you remand it back so they have an opportunity to present anything if that is the route that the commission goes. >> mrs. tension, i think you said this earlier, what is the status of the department's position with respect to the third property, 2303 devisidaro. is there any notice there. >> there is a notice issued that their building is unsafe with the retaining walls, that are near to the neighboring property, they were sited for the first notice of violation, they were not issued a second because there was evidence presented at the time that would indicate that maybe the retaining walls were entirely on the neighboring properties.

>> what is the first violation noticed. >> march 24th of last year. >> have you looked at the 4th property by chance? the one that one of the speakers the wall extends through on the corner. >> yeah, there say 4th property that did some work on their side of the property line so that that the adjacent retaining wall to them, is no longer an issue they have put in concrete support on their own property. that was their solution. they incured the costs entirely on themselves putting concrete condition on the back of it so it was no longer an issue, at the cost to themselves. >> they put a wall that is full

height, that doesn't rely on the other wall. >> exactly. yes. >> melgar? >> the walk way, you showed us who uses that walk way? >> i understand the walk way is part of the neighboring property that you are asking about. >> so the one that has not been sited, or the one that is sited, you decided was not part of it? >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> so i have heard conflicting discussion about when each of these developments was built. like which came first the chicken or the egg? so it looks to me like the house up above on the wall was built on top of the retaining wall that was there.

was the wall built at the same time of the house. >> we have no way of telling. >> we don't have any evidence one way or the other about any of that. about the timing? >> even if we did we avoid that, from the department's point of view it's not in an unsafe condition, and avoid any dispute of that nature. >> in this case, there is evidence on all sides of this issue, would you normally include everybody? >> i acknowledge you have a very different position because there are three properties being spoken about, two are before you. so i could not argue against you if you were to send these two properties back to the department. if the director decided that because of additional evidence we receive

today, if he decided to ask us to take that third property to a hearing, and an order of abatement issued and they appealed us you could have a situation where all three come back before you, then these requests would all be before you, but i wouldn't suggest that. >> okay. >> commissioner lee then commissioner mar. >> let me say, it's kind of sad for me to seep these cases come before us all the time it's essentially good neighbors that ended up being in dispute with each other. it's very sad. but one thing we have established is we don't know which came first, second, third, or what. the thing is what is happening there now? the owners are not

the original owners of the building we can't rely on what the purpose of the wall, but what the wall is doing now it's benefitting all three properties, in my eyes they're holding up the homes of two homes and they're protecting the home of the third property so they all share equally, in my opinion. right? they all should share. any repairing of the wall will involve all three property they need to get along. they need to figure it out. whether the sharing of responsibility is equal? i don't know that is not for us to decide. i think what our abatement appeals board, is supposed to do is decide whether or not, if the department issued an order of abatement correctly or not. if all of the evidence presented today, it shows that

the department visited directly issued property owners of the walls, or were on the properties that were sited or given the order of abatement. i'm thinking we should at least i will, i will probably uphold the issuance of abatement appeal, and suggest to the department if they find evidence that shows that the footing of that wall encroaches onto another property, they can issue a citation to that property. >> commissioner mar? >> okay so i can understand the comments commissioner lee just made what also raises questions we heard it late. i know the agenda item is taking a long time, but the third owner was

actually originally sited, they were issued one but they were let off, the department decided to let them off based on their engineer's report. so this commission usually, we don't like to second guess the department. it's not clear to me why we let them off for that. why they were taken off of that original first nov, because they would be here. if we didn't take them off. so that is i agree, this wall has to be dealt with, but i'm torn whether it should be dealt with by all 3 or 2. we heard that late that you just said. the original nov included

the third property owner. >> commissioner melgar. >> i wanted to point out, this is a similar situation what we saw last month on deloris street, it would behoove us to be consistent. i did not agree we should have sited the deloris street property because it was the foundation of the next property that was failing due to their excavation. you will remember it's a very similar situation, i would also like commissioner lee would upheld the order of abatement. i would not, you know, want to site the owner who has the encroaching wall. i understand it's unsafe for them, and their walk way, i do think that i don't want to

get drawn into the civil matter of whose property it is. i think that the wall needs to be fixed if the civil matter goes on and the recouping of cost is dealt that way, that is fine. but the issue that is before us what we have responsibility for is to make sure that the wall is safe. i would uphold the department's recommendation. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> i concur with the commissionerer's here especially commissioner lee. i put my shoes in the property owner, in this particular case the devisidaro case, the 2308, have been cooperative heting people in there to make their case i think -- the lady forgive me your last name --

kate -- show us the proof where this wall is part of our property, they failed to do that. the department has a black and white situation i think they have gone out and did a good job, calling in the surveyier and talking to them i thought it was a good gesture to demonstrate to them they're making the right desis, the other side also had the ability to produce a survey that would contradict that survey i haven't seen that. because of that i'm also in favor upholding the order of abatement. >> before we make a motion we will see if there is any other public comment or any speakers that have been up. seeing none would any of the commissioners like to make a motion. >> i would like to make a motion that we uphold the department's orders. >> and on the second item,

what's the proper line we declare it's not our jurisdiction? >> the motion covers everything. >> i second that. >> we have a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement. i will do a roll call vote. clinch yes. melgar. yes. mccarthy. yes. mar. yes. lee, yes. mccray yes. walker yes. the motion carries unanimously. we need to return to item c, elegislation of officers-- election

of officers >> after extensive negotiations and discussions [laughter] lots of fore thought, i would like to step down and nominate commissioner melgar for president. >> second. [laughter]. >> okay we have a motion. >> are we writing on these at the same time. >> yes, we can take them at the same time -- oh, separate? we will do them separate. we have a nomination for commissioner melgar as president. and do a roll call vote. >> any public comment? do you accept the nomination?

[laughter]. >> she has accepted, is there any public comment regarding the election? president clinch. ex-president clinch. >> yes. melgar yes. mccarthy yes. lee yes, mccray yes, walker, yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you. >> the next is for viet president. >> yes, i would like to nominate commissioner clinch. >> second. >> thank you. >> you accept that nomination? we have a motion and a second for commissioner clinch for vice president. clinch yes. melgar yes. mccarthy yes. mar yes. lee

yes mccray yes, walker yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item f. general public comment, is there gentlemen public comment for items not on the abatement board agenda. >> there is the meeting minutes. >> the minutes are not ready. >> okay i see. >> we will vote on them the next meeting. >> okay, thank you. >> item g.? motion to adjourn. >> yeah. >> all in commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. it's 10:26 a.m. we will take a five minute resouse, we will reconvene with the building inspection.

(meeting adjourned at ready to begin. good morning today is wednesday, may 20th. 2015, regular meeting of the building inspection commission, i would like to remind everybody to please turn off electronic devices, the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy here. mar here clinch here, lee? here mccray present. melgar here. walker here. >> we have a quorum next item is president's announcements.

>> good morning web to the may 20th. 2015 bic, meeting, forgive me if i mispronounce any names, as follows, tom hui briefed san francisco committee may first, and gave them an overview of the dbi, current responsibility in building load. we also talked about the retro fit program, noise, policy for adding dwelling units shg where they can be added with the existing building. chief inspector ron tom, joined them on a workshop may 11th. that attracted over 40 participants, on the focus on preparing your home and property for the next earthquake, this is

the second held of the four that dbi is hosting, during the safety month. the first workshop was held may 6th chief commissioner vas kwez-to-for fife safety tips and the library. dbi staff participated in over site committee, and follow up of the city response to june 2014 civil grand jury, report on rising sea levels the board reject the modifying building and planning code because extensive research and study, to cope with rising sea levels are under way, by multiple city department including planning the port puc and dbi as mentioned last month dbi is participated in the

annual project poll high school internship program. this is an eight week program which high school students are mentored by dbi staff, and in june 15th august and 7th. in the past two year, dbi has 8-10 project poll interns, they have provided invaluable assistance to staff. for the program that begins to june. dbi will have 12 interims up from last year, that is very good. a reminder, june is building safety month. and dbi is in the national reminder why building codes help ensure public safety through well built buildings, as part of safety month, they're running ads, on muni, and brown bag workshop on

elements, with four topics discussed each week in may two of which have been completed, two more left, one focusing on water, and one on solar next week wednesday 5-27. check the website, www.fdbi.org for educational events, and to watch where other workshops are held. with respect to the may 8th. issue of the department magazine, with a focus on what building inspection serviceses, and code enforcements to do to ensure life safety especially fire safety elements and how they're monitored and maintained, the article is timely with the recent spat of multiple alarm fires in the mission tamber line neighbors,

with the owners of apartment buildings, key action items, that are owner responsibility for resident safety. kudos to dbi staff, ron dicks, and eliver si. for -- may second, on the twenty-first, and twenty-second street. -- to help our customers, better understand what is involve involved to obtaining permits and inspections, madame secretary, that concludes my announcements. >> any public comments on the announcements? seeing none, public comment that are not part

of this agenda. seeing none. item four. discussion and possible act to adopt the notice of decisions, and finding for appeal regarding 1142 a guerrero street satish k give up ta appellant. is there any discussion? >> yes i would like to point out, two directions need to be made on the first and third page the vote counts refer to 6 to one, it was actually 5 to 1, it was not here. >> okay i will correct that on the vote 5 to 1. okay. >> good catch commissioner lee. [laughter]

[laughter]. >> any other? is there a motion to adopt the finding? >> i move that we adopt the findings with commissioner lee's correction. >> there was a motion, is there a second. >> second. >> is there any public comment on these? seeing none i will do a roll call vote. mccarthy yes. mar? yes. clinch? yes. lee? yes. mccray? yes. melgar? yes. walker? no. >> the motion carries 6 to 1. thank you. item five, update on the department five inspection, from our april meeting.

>> good morning commissioners and director hui, members of the audience, my name general, is randy mclure i'm a project manager at the controller office we ask that the next items be pushed into one line item for the sake of this presentation. >> i forgot about that we will be calling 5 and 6 together, item six and possible action, to amend building code fee tables tables one a-a-one a-0, and 1 a-s. >> thank you. i'm here with the dbi, fee study project, as well as discuss impacts and changes on the fees going forward.

quick overview of the presentation. a little bit of background how we got to the fee study in the first place to start. followed by a little bit of discussion, of dbi's, revenues and expenditures, over the last 5-6 year period. discussion of the report findings, and recommendations to follow that. further discussion of some of the impacts and post changes to provide solutions for the findings and recommendations, and the discuss of the implementation time line. brief background. in fy 13, the controllers office did an analysis, of expenditures and fund balance of dbi, coming up with four basic recommendations from the analysis the first is to establish and maintenance a reserve with four months of costs, next is to make additional systems fleet and

capital, further increased staffing to increase workload demands, and a work study to better match feeses to cost. the first three at this point are done or continuing and ongoing, the fee study is of course why i'm here today. a little bit of discussion about the fund balance status is important for today's presentation as we know, dbi has been over collecting for a number of years, and under spending relative to revenue and expenditures, causing over the course of the 5-6 year, the fund balance to rise so what you see here today is a financial snapshot table from 2009, to 2015 numbers. 2015's numbers are currently projected, you see the revenue has risen from $49.5 million figure in 09

which is the following of the start of the recession, to 228 million, which is an increase. started taking up after 2009 and has grown since. total expenditures were equivalent to 2009's revenues and went down as a result of recession, in 2009 and 11, and started to pick back up in 2012, where we are now, an additional 21 million, and 2016, projected at 23 million. in regard to the balance, 2010, and the next five years, is a significant