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't prove the water came from our backyard. there is no evidence that the walls are not on or property they have had anything we have let them bring whoever they want to bring surveyiers, anyone we have never seen a survey report we have been completely transparent. the

construction of the corner property. of devisidaro and washington built a 12 car garage, their contractor said oh, my god you need to contact these neighbors, they're in horrible condition, that's when we brought our contractors, they're in horrible condition, they're your neighboring walls, we went 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 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