begin. good morning, today is wednesday, may 20th. 2015 this is the regular meeting of the the first item is roll call. clinch here. mccarthy here mar here lee here.

walker here. vice president melgar, and commissioner gray are expected. all parties giving testimony today, please raise your hand right. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you may be seated. next item is item c, election of officers, but we will continue that shortly when some of the other commissioners arrive. item b approval of minutes, i would like to request that we continue those as well as possible. item e, new appeal order of abasement. case 6804285 kikz washington

street. owner of record rita har personal opinion appellant mark, gupin. appellant, contends, that the retaining wall that is the subject of the abatement. on property. 2308 to 231 to. the wall was constructed maintained and controlled by the adjacent owners, appellant seeks edition to the property owners, staff? >> we will take these separately, so seven minute, right? >> actually the attorney request they be combine because some of this are related, she requested 21 minutes for all of them. >> the washington streets? >> yes.

>> good morning for the department. there are two buildings, the first building, 2856 washington street four cone does, the other three condos, 2858, 2860, and 2862 washington, it's an unsafe condition, on the break foundation wall. on october 7th of last year resulting in abatement being issued there are no permits dealing with the violation. therefore, staff recommended to pull out of abatement, and oppose the assessment of costs, the other building in question 2320, devero street three condos, the other three condos, 2322, and 23220.

the evaluations are the same. they're hearing two place on the same day, resulting in order of abatement, no permits, staff recommends that you uphold the aabatement, and services of cost. hopefully, since there are seven cases involved if you choose to let's appellants do the presentation that way, i will be glad to take questions on rebuttal, if that is okay. >> thank you another point of clarification, we're considering seven cases at once not three? >> um, all of them. >> commissioner there's seven properties shg seven addresses, seven condominiums. >> does that mean we give the appellant 49 minutes. >> she requested 21, if she needs to go over, it can be granted, considering.

>> aren't they different appellants. >> she's representing all of them. >> oh, okay. >> there are seven condominiums shg but two lots. >> can you describe the violations, specifically so we know. >> so on washington street, you have two buildings, side by side, so it's best to call them one building, there is two condos in each -- yes -- yes. so there are four condos. so we have four separate lot numbers, four separate owners but the point of view of this discussion, it's best to consider them as one building in the other building before you is devero street three condos, and one building, >> behind it? >> it's kind of an l, shape. >> okay. >> so those three condo owners, separate lot owners all in one

building, so basically, you have two buildings, two groups of condo owners that have retaining walls that are considered unsafe. and you have from what i understand, one representative for all seven. >> all right. and before you go, there is two walls, not one. >> yes. >> are these walls garden retaining walls or foundation walls underneath the building,? >> they have a major brief, answering all of those questions, i will be glad to answer later, and the deputy director of inspections is here to answer them also. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> to the chair did you actually visit the site? >> i understand the deputy director visited the site yesterday. >> you are not familiar with the

site? >> he is familiar with the site yes. >> thank you. >> just wanted to clarify we are calling all of cases today, so the additional cases, case 6805, 2856 washington street. 2856 washington, 2856 washington, case number 6808. 2320. divero and devisidaro street. >> i would like to acknowledge that commissioner mccray joined us. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is --

rubin, genius and rows i'm here for all 70s on deviro, and washington street. we have dan gray who is allianced surveyor, with 30 years of experience taking a look at the site we have bret fer rar ree, who is an engineer to discuss the site conditions i would like to speak about the abatement for context, and ask the experts to speak briefly on their representative topics first as we mentioned in our brief, the control of these retaining walls, is in dispute between three adjacent property owners it's not resolved as a practical matter, it should be determined before the city imposes fines to take action to

repair them, as a policy matter allowing the abatement to move forward, is undesirable, because of dbi and ownership responsibility of the wall it may encourage owners to use dbi enforement over issues of property lines, for these reasons, we're asking the aabatement is held in advance, until this issue is resolved. two of the three adjacent properties, the land surveys, the wall is located on the entire properties that is incorrect. the measurements on the survey, that was relied upon, portions of those walls are located on all three properties, if dbi is relying on the survey for issue

of the abatement orders we're asking that the others be sited and brought into this action so it's uniform. just to provide context of the location of these walls, i will place an image on the overhead projector. so this is similar to the map we provided in exhibit a, that had an area view of the actual buildings, what you are seeing are the protwopts, 2856 washington and 2320 devisidaro here. the location of the retaining wall is shown in red, you can see the l shaped formation, there is a third property owner adjacent to both of these walls, right now, the two properties are corner to each other, you can't see the lot line in this

image, but the retaining wall does not occur in that location >> can you identify the third property? >> sure. >> do you know the aaddress to that. >> 2308 to 231 to devisidaro -- it's a civil issue, determining who is responsible to remayor those wall it could require a jury to consider a number of factor location historical construction how it's currently used site context, history of maintenance or control over the wall features retaining walls, over property line can be determined to be long standing encroachments, party line walls,

each of which implies a different responsibilitiess of the adjacent owners of the buildings, dbi, issued the abatement order, the walls are located on the properties, and it relied on a 2014 land survey by ron associates shg which is provided in your packets, however, our surveyier, stan grey confirms measurements on it, show that measurements of the retaining wall are located on the unsited property as well. marked copy shone in red, is shown in exhibit g, in your packets, i will provide a pack it on the overhead, and i will ask him to review the results of the survey.

>> my name is stan gray, i'm allianced -- with [inaudible] survey. provided by the neighbor provided 3303. where is the overhead? you will notice in two areas highlighted in red on your package, the surveyier, his name is david ron, shows that the wall is over 0.110, at two feet up, at wall two feet. plus or minus up on the washington street property it's also enkroeting to 2308, and 2312 in two locations, on the prior testimony, none of the wall was over the line but on the map, 100 it's over in one

area, 300 over on the other, there were cracks this is at the base of the wall. onto 2308, 2312 devisidaro. >> thank you. so commissioners, on the basis of that if dbi, is relying on the survey for issuance of location order, we ask that that move to the third property owner, for the repair requirements, however, the abatements should be proceed the all, until the ownership dispute is resolved the location, would be one factor, that a jurier may consider as a factor. before we belief that these

walls were likely constructed more than 100 years ago, although there is very little historical information and documentation, we summarize the site conditions, in our letter which say the wall may be constructed br the third property owner of devisidaro. i will ask bret ferrari, to speak to his site conditions and content and construction, and a copy of his report is provided in the packet as exhibit h. >> thank you. bret fer rar ree, structural engineering, i have been practicing here for 30 years i have had experience with conditions, xktly like this in san francisco, neighbor disputes with retaining walls, that are over 120 years,.

the l shaped walls, were built for the benefit of the devisidaro place. to flatten the lot, it runs downhill north to south, in order to flatten the lot, the hillside had to be cut into. the hillside properties on washington, were constructed on top of the brick retaining walls, so the walls had to exist before the buildings, were constructed. i had a similar case between properties between pine and bush street where there was a brick wall that sur vised the 06 earthquake, it was solely on the uphill property it was typical at that time to build a retaining wall on the inside space, to maximize the square footage, court here in san francisco, the judge ruled that the maintenance and ownership of that wall is for the downhill

neighbor, because they were solely benefitting from the extra square footage. that's about it. >> may i ask a question? >> yes, please. >> did you physical see the wall? >> yes i did. >> how did you access? >> devisidaro place let us in through the gate. >> thank you. >> the wall has cracks as a parch code it looks like there has been attempts to put grout in those cracks it has shifted some but it outlived the 06, and 89 earthquake i don't think there is any danger of failure, but it does show some damage. >> thank you. >> thank you. so based on this information, and the materials we have in our

packet which also do include images of the wall and other documentation, we're asking that the board release these abasement orders or hold them in advance, until the civil ownership dispute has been resolved, so it's apparent who is responsible for the repair of the walls -- the third adjacent property owners so the requirements are applied to all of the properties where the walls are located. -- (audio cut out) testimony. >> any questions? >> commissioner walker? >> yes. to mr. hin shooin why is it that we did not include the

other property in our noticing in this since they were all like touching each other? >> director denari is here he will be able to help you with that question. >> thank you. >> good morning commissioners, deputy director, dan lowrey. in the case of retaining walls, we site both owners unless they can prove to us that the retaining wall is sitting on this portion of the property here so we ask for a survey we were provided by the survey from mark nuron. in the survey it showed that the base the retaining walls, are not retaining walls, they're a foundation for the portion of the building both of those buildings, sit on the wallses, the rear portion is a retaining wall >> both of the ones that were sited?

>> right. correct. >> i'm sorry. dan, so the third property doesn't sit on the wall? >> no no it's on the inside of the walls. >> there say back portion of the property that is part of the erest, there is a walk way, between the middle house devisidaro house, and there is an e ways to the front gate where they can get access to the front. >> right here? >> correct. looking down at this picture, you can see the portion of the house that sits on the wall they're fortunate it has a fence on it. i don't know if you can see it you can see the spaulding of the wall right on top.>> there is

vegetation coming out of the cracks? >> yeah, the survey shows the wall at the bottom but where the bow goes, you have 3-and-a-half inches of bow on the wall. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> yeah do you have the survey there? can you put that up? >> sure. >> okay. so obviously, the devisidaro back here. if you go to the corner there is actually a property at the foundation, all the way up along on the retaining wall. >> if you see where my finger

is. (speaking off the mic). off the brick wall. that portion over there is part of the portion of the building is on the wall itself. >> that's where that alley way is where the wall is boeing, right? >> right. >> is the footing of that retaining way, in the devisidaro street property based on what you saw, or is it in the adjacent properties? the footing? >> okay the footing itself my understanding, when we asked for the survey in the office we had a meeting with them concerning the posting violations, the footings were on the property line of the walls, the footing itself was not on the property in dispute here. >> in devisidaro. >> right. >> so the footings, are clearly in the other property not the devisidaro property correct.

>> that is correct. there is 4 or 5 survey shg in this house, they will comply with the martin run survey there. >> we notice they bow into the devisidaro property, correct? >> yeah any where 2-7 feet. >> it bows depending on where you are looking at the walls. >> correct. >> because it's boeing into the property, it's falling, even though the footing is still in the other property -- i'm kind of confused why we would think that wall is in the devisidaro street property. >> correct, but the wall it's a tall wall it starts off at property line, as it comes up, it bows into the devisidaro property line according to this survey here.

>> okay there is no other evidence being presented, saying the footings of that property are in the devisidaro property? i went through the brief here i didn't see anything other than the fact that it's boeing into the property because it's failing. >> that's the way we look at it. >> the entire footing is in the appellant's property? >> the wall itself exist of the foundation, it's a retaining wall it's a foundation and retaining wall the front portion is on the back portion, the side order is the retaining wall. >> i'm just saying that the entire wall and footing is in the appellant side of the property. >> that's what we see in the survey. yes. >> the footing is the key for me. no further questions. >> there is also a letter in our

packet, from santos urita there. i'm not sure what page it is here. in the letter it says the walls on the neighbor's properties has cracks, with severe damage and stamped by albert urita. i will put that up on the screen. >> and i understand sorry, to the chair one more time, you brought it to the surveyier and talked about it? >> yes, they came into the office and met with the chief. inspector duffy and myself. >> okay. >> if there are no further questions, we will have the department rebuttal if there is

one. rebuttal. >> i will leave the difficult situation in your land hands [laughter]. >> but the department's recommendation is? >> uphold the orders of abatement on all seven condos and the post assessment of costs. >> commissioner mar? >> i would like to get -- i noticed the difficult decision is ours i wanted to ask the department's opinion about how they would feel if we turned it back to the department and hold the order in abay yenseyance in other

words, if we were to kick it back to you guys to go back out there to relook at the engineering reports and to determine um, exactly where the property line was for this wall does that make sense? >> um. >> i mean is there any new information that you feel that could beooked at i'm asking the department. >> if you were to send it back to the department. >> and director sharing or something. >> you could be responding to basically one of the two items, that the appellant has proposed. the other item there posing is a

third property that may be effected by this. >> right. >> are you addressing that issue? >> yes. that's what i'm asking. is there something else to look at whether that third property is involved, in termses of property lines? >> because getting into property line issues is something we avoid um, the only change i could see if you send it back to the department would be having a discussion with the neighboring property. i acknowledge the situation you are in, you've got two properties before you there is a third property that is being referred to but you are in the dark what is going on with that property. you are kind of at a disadvantage. if all

three properties were before you, maybe it might make your situation more clear. >> right. right. >> that is not for me to say. >> i understand the city's options, and the department's options are limited, we don't like to get in the middle of neighbor disputes sometimes if all neighbors are held accountable, it forces them to deal with it whereas only one out of 2 or 2 out of three are held accountable to the deal then the third or second person in different cases could just say, i don't have to deal with it at all. >> yes. in response to those comments, if it was sent back to the department shg and if at a later time an abatement was issued on the neighboring properties and all three properties, were appealed and came before you, you might have a clearer opportunity to make a

decision. >> commissioner melgar and walker? >> i have a question the letter from urita said a couple of things that were concerning firstly, in the letter the engineer, mr. rutia says that the wall actually is at risk of failure, which contradict's the testimony of the engineer, so i want your information on that. and the base of the retaining wall that drain onto the devisidaro property. i wanded you to clarify that that devisidaro property is the one that has not been sited, the one the weep holes drain into. third, there is an