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 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 you performed a survey? >> 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 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