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 be looked 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 excavation scheduled for the washington

street property to add parking, is that the washington property that decided? >> the neighboring property 2308 devisidaro. they did get a first notice of violation but because there were presentations made to the department it seemed reasonable, where it looked like the retaining walls and foundations were only on the other two property then the department moved forward with those. >> okay. >> if that's rebutted in some way, have you a situation where all three come back before you the department can only look at what they see at this time. today, there may be additional

information that could change appearance. >> in addition to the wall excavation have they pulled permits for that? >> there are no permits for any of these unsafe conditions. >> no, no, for the posed additional parking from the neighboring property do you have that letter from the property -- >> i do. -- >> -- risk of actual failure of that wall which sounds reasonable if there is excavation at the neighboring property. >> i don't think anybody's arguing it's an unsafe condition, i think everybody would agree that's the case. >> that's not what they said. >> in their brief, they have information that agrees that the walls are unsafe. from what i'm hearing, it's more like a

property line dispute which i don't care to get into. >> commissioner walker? >> actually, i don't have any questions, i do want to discuss it after public comment. >> actually i just had a follow up based on commissioner melgar's question we're to understand that the uninvolved neighbor is doing some work? whose doing the excavation? >> nobody's doing any work. >> not now. >> no work going on. >> we will hear the rebuttal from the appellant and go to public comment. >> thank you. just as a direct follow up the santos urita, letter, in communications back and forth was produced commissioned by the unsited owner, included in the material to the currently two sided

owners trying to ask them to take on unilateral repair of the walls, that references a construction project, that is complete, it's not for either of the properties, adjacent it's the corner of washington street and devisidaro that is not involved in this dispute, that is passed. i do want to point out that our license surveyier does dispute the location of the footing, or the measurement on the martin run survey i understand he would like to make some quick comments on that and we would also have very quickly, the structural engineer speak ago about the condition of the wall. >> actually, can i ask a quick question? before our department got involved, before devisidaro place called us do you know if your clients were connected by

the devisidaro place? >> yes they both were. >> in the packet i believe it's exhibit b, the first two letters, are the letter they received from devisidaro place noting the conditions of the wall and seeking that the current sited property owners, take responsibility for the repair of those walls, the letters are explaining the history and condition of the wall and they're not responsible -- >> letters is the initial contact. >> yes unfortunately, the negotiations broke down when this complaint was issued. >> thank you. >> if you look at the martin run survey, for the sake of argument, you look at it specifically, marked in red in packet, it shows that the walls

over the line 0.11 at two feet up on the devisidaro in the rear line, and in the north line the building is over -- the wall is two feet up that is at the lowest point you can measure the wall above the ground to have access to it. obviously, the wall grade is not exposed, we don't know what that is. but on the survey, it's over the property line, at two locations at two feet above the ground. >> that is two feet above the ground? >> that's what he says two feed up. >> so it's not on the ground, it's two feet above. right? >> so when he was walking up to the wall he couldn't take a measure at ground level because of shrubbery, or object and two feet to take his measurements,

where the measurement will be at two peat, at two feet there was no indication it was boeingwing -- it is above on 2308 on his survey. >> commissioner mccray? >> (speaking off the mic) underneath the ground two feet? >> the structural engineer can answer that? >> have yousurvey? >> i have the decision was, the martin run survey is accurate, but it does show the wall being over the line in 2308, so portions are over, directly two feet, without providing a

separate survey. >> so you have not performed an actual survey to counter the argument you are making with shrubbery in the way there, measured two feet above. >> we have done a complete boundary and survey of the wall martin run survey accurately depicts the wall in two locations. so we didn't need to exhibit the map, it's over the wall in two locations. >> do you have a survey to kind of help me with the fact that from the start of the wall up a written survey showing over the property line. >> yes, we do. the point is because -- >> is it in this package. >> no -- yes, we did do a complete survey we have one that is certified, it shows the line over the wall as well when he made his measurements he

didn't mark them as abcd, and mark them on the wall so we can locate the same exact point so when we're out there on the wall, it's not marked, we take it at the base and top we find the same issues portions of the wall are on over on the ground level. >> if we had evidence here and had gone to dbi and demonstrated that with the survey like the last surveyier, martin ron did, we wouldn't have this discussion, because the information that is in front of us surveyed states in your own package states it's not. i need to see -- my point is that the footings are not in the devisidaro street properties. i haven't seen any evidence in the package to demonstrate. other than you have done a survey that is not in the package, right?

>> no i'm not explaining myself clearly, the decision was, the martin ron, survey itself we look at the martin ron survey for this location it shows it's over the line on the survey meaning, he himself is showing the wall over the line what is the necessity to show further when their own surveyier showed it over the line. >> two feet up. >> two feet up. >> if we marked the walls, we would have showed abcd we would have found the same locations and found the same results. >> did you take measurements at the base of the wall. >> no, you have to take them up a little bit because of obstructions along the wall we can take hundreds of measurements around the wall it's a sample it's subjective you shouldn't do this purposely,

you can take your measurements as close and high up as you could, and have bowing measurements there, we marked the wall and gave it a label. we did produce. >> do you want to see his schematic, his survey is that what you are asking for, dmigs -- commissioner? >> obviously, we're here now, this is the opportunity to make that argument that is the crux of the -- i'm surprised it's not in there. i know the staff would even support this comment if they could get evidence of that sort if the actual wall is in the devisidaro property. >> do you have that survey with you? >> not in mine with me but in the packet we circled, where the wall is 11 hundredths over.

>> the issue is the two feet up. >> as far as i see this survey where i'm going the footing of this wall is not in the devisidaro is not on the property, i will put that to the bowing of the property if i have something to commissioner walker's point, at the foot of the wall it would really help me. it would tell me that the footing of that wall is in the devisidaro street property, and they are over the property right now, it's not on the property. there is no evidence other than the fact you are telling me two feet up. >> martin ron is two feet up. on the survey it was not completely accessible, it had something around it. >> i understand your dilemma, i appreciate you being very clear as far as i'm concerned, the

wall is not in the devisidaro property. >> i understand it would tell you that well the martin ron does not show the elevation above two feat so the information is lacking from his survey. >> how much time is left? >> he's going to address -- >> as a quick follow up. the reason another survey was not included in the packet it presented an additional cost to the owners, to do a record of survey on it their position is, they relied on the martin ron survey, they would do the same, they feel you are sighting property owners, based on the fact that the location of the wall is exclusively on 1 or 2

properties, we should be able to look at the survey if the data shows the location of that wall any where else. >> i want to clarify a couple of points, to your question about mr. rodrigo's, statement about the condition of the wall can be said about any unreenforced mason ree, structure built in 1950 in san francisco, the footing, especially in washington street there is a concrete cap on top of the wall, that is the footing for the building at washington street, to the extent if that wall is bowed at that point, may put that foundation over the line, the last point i have referenced the properties between bush and pine, both of those properties were destroyed in the san francisco earthquake, and falling fire, even though

the building at bush was constructed after the retaining wall, they were still found responsible for that wall, that is it. (speaking off the mic) >> there is a portion where it looks like the shift is caused by the organic, the root is putting pressure on the wall. i would have to let it gel i will tell you about the soil conditions, because it is a hill that comes down, it is not sandy oil, it's probably rock with just a little bit of back fill i don't believe there is a lot of pressure on it, but for vegetation. >> how thick is the parg code? is it pealing off? >> it is pealing off in some

areas areas. >> okay. any questions from the commissioners? >> yeah time left if you have anything else? >> i think that's it if you have questions, let me know, otherwise, we do feel it would help the underlying civil issue, it would help if you held this in abeyance, at the least, wait for the property owners, to be finalized, to return on the aabatement order. >> thank you. we will take public comment. >> is there any public comment on the item? >> my name is david ron, i'm the surveyier that performed this survey i worked for martin ron

surveys, we specialize in boundary issues in san francisco. to address some of the confusion going on. what we did when we were there, when you look at the walls, you can see they're not straight, they're bowing so we looked for worst case scenarios, to show what was happening, if you look at the survey in front of you, on the easterlily side the two story garage building, below half way up the page, it says below 2 feet clear up. >> if you could put it on the overhead. >> measurement four foot clear, two feet up, that is where the wall is not on the building any more it's in the retaining

wall then in the corner here four foot wall, two feet up. the corners are straight. if the wall was straight at one time, that would happen, in the middle, we came over here to that 11 and 31 that they're talking about, and that's where we found the worst of the bow was, that's why we took our measurements there. as far as where the lowest point is um, i mean like as mr. gray said we take our measurements where we feel we can make an accurate measurement, that is convenient for us and shows the picture of what is happening, we wanted to show near the ground it's over the property liep but not at the ground, we're also showing in the corners, the wall is already clear we wanted to show that the bow is happening, it's the same scenario on the other side, i don't know if we need to go through each measurement.

hopefully, that clears up some of the discrepancy. >> to your point, you could have taken it from the bottom of the wall you went to where it's bow bowing, and you start your measurements up. >> correct. we wanted to be consistent, the reason we're showing two feet everywhere, is seven feets over where, we want to say, at at two feet up, in one corner, it's half an inch clear, and half an inch clear. it's clear on the end in the middle it's bowing out (buzzer). >> if the bow was at the foot you would have taken it from there, right? >> we took it at the bow where it showed the bowing in the picture is happening. >> so does your schematic of the

footings of the structure lie? >> we can only measure what is visible (buzzer). >> it's okay you can go. >> we located a wall, we shouth we would show the picture of what is happening. as far as what is happening underground, we don't know. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time i'm one of the owners of the 2308 a devisidaro street property. a few things jump out of at us first of all the attorney put up a scomatic with a red felt tip line on the wall. there are two walls, but the one that the

washington street residence sits on goes all the way passed our property, it would be helpful if we had that drawing again. we're not sitting on the corner of devisidaro and washington my property we sit one lot over. the corner unit is also straddling this wall ta washington street they conveniently showed that. i will get to reasons, why that is ab absurd to us -- it's amazing when you sit and listen to and hour or half hour of details,

and comply quayed. what we have not shown is our property is build third out of the three. two sited properties, which are seven owners, but two sided properties, they were build first these are the foundation as a deputy director brought up. these are the foundations of their homes, they had to have these walls, in order for their walls to be sitting there, or they would be 11 tating, there is no dispute they're the foundation of the home their home was built before our home, so how it serves our property or benefits any way, is absurd our property is built after theirs, these are their walls, there are five surveys three of the five surveys, were provided by these neighbors, the three original surveys, when these

buildings, were turned into condominiums 30 years ago, the martin ron, and the gentlemen here today all five of the surveys, forgive me for being informal it seems like an insult to our intelligence, that this is -- for debate. to kick this back to the city, there is dozens between the party right now, before they came to you, they exhausted every possible question they could ask. and they have determined very clearly, these walls sit on the neighboring properties not ours and not the other neighbor on the corner -- >> i will have to cut you off that was a final bell for a three minute we do this with

the public comment with this many cases if i could ask the attorney, when this many cases, concerned at once, is it still considered -- okay so collectively we will allow an extra minute for public comment. >> there is no legal dispute, our neighbors stopped talking about it, when we said we're not going to way for your walls, other more than the dry rot that sits right in top of the dry wall, if you are not going to help us pay for the walls, there is nothing left to discuss. so there's been so civil action this is the first i have heard of it this is just the stepping in and saying there say danger. (buzzer) i think that is the

important stuff, all the base shows these are at the base of the property not ours we feel completely victimized, and other homeses in the area like the one on the corner in harm's way, they're trying to ask us to help pay for the repair of walls, which lots of money has been spent on surveys, to establish those walls are not our walls, and their homes were built on top of the walls, before they existed. thank you. >> there is a question. >> i i almost want to think you are not the original owner of the house. >> yeah. >> you must have seen though walls, when you bought the place. >> yes, sir? >> what were your thoughts on the wall. >> we started discussing this with hoh, 4-and-a-half years ago, shortly after that started discussions with the neighbors, which began with a friendly knock on the door bringing them

over, just like when we had them come over from cutting the over growth on their garden and paintings the home hey you have to take care of these walls, that they would do everything in their power, to drag us into a dispute about their walls, when these walls fail. who is to say it's not going to crash onto the corner of devisidaro and washington, that has just as much exposure to the walls, as ours we are depending this case it's their walls, it was built before our houses were built, that is public documented record, we have the documentation from the industry if you would like to see it. >> thank you. next speaker. four

minutes. >> i'm an owner of two of the properties will that give me twice the amount? no? okay. i have lived there 14 years when i purchased the property you asked have i seen the wall -- >> state your name for the record. >> my name is kate kardez. sni represented represented of the property. i asked if they would fix this wall, they remained silent to me. over the years shg they have come to our property, they have taken off the vegetation, as the other owner said, we tried to bring them over and say, look at the condition of the wall the washington property redo their backyard garten, since that time they're draining through the weep holes on the wall, their response is you can