and the question is whether or not the ethics commission was to will move to disclose it's closed session deliberations and do i call another vote. >> well somebody needs to make the motion and second it. >> i move not to disclose. >> any public comment? hearing none call the question >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none 5 vote item no. 7 discussion and possible action on the which i guess april 27, 2015 draft

meeting minutes. >> commissioner have any comments on the minutes any public comment. >> david pill pal on page 6 of the minutes motion 15 the motion po to recuse commissioner president keane i believe a member of a body votes on the motion to be recused and voting open the merits commissioner president keane is properly listed as being recused people are thinking about this. >> that's on page 6. >> and also on page 10 a mirror thing under item 10 i asked from the next meanwhile meeting will be moved to the next dates

because of the memorial day it was moved tonight to wednesday and the meeting will not be held on the regular day it is not that important thank you. >> is there a motion to adapt the minutes. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? hearing none minutes are approved 50. >> next item. >> discussion of the executive director report. >> just a couple of highlights as of yesterday this month since the last meeting we've had 5 interested meeting including about the executive director

research about the expansion of the electronic filings of form 7 hundred the financial disclosure forms and the ninth or fifth one about the candidate control measure committees action we're considering i want to point out that the 21 records request we've gotten since the start ever april some are extensive it is a busy time for the staff in the last couple of months those are taking up time and it is just make you aware there's a lot going on and the staff is work and one last one i'll defer to the deputy director. >> thank you. i wanted to point out we have included the claerld at the end of the d d report which shows the project

calendar and you'll notice that the form 7 hundred electronic form regulation was scheduled for this month we the chair decided to put it over one month because the length of the united when we do that so we each year hearing that in june we'll have our special meeting on june 5 regarding the candidate committees i anticipate further with the committee meeting depends upon the staff resources. >> any public comment. >> david pill pal two items under items 7 the second photograph of have filed their

ordinance declaration that is troubling i hope the staff will improve that in the next month i'm not sure i understand the 25 percent have filed their certificate of others train that is a state law requirement over a two month period if i'm not sure if it is report period is there one has two years from the last time anyway, if staff can review those figures and make sure their accurate and hopefully, people will apply and the calendar adapted by the commission i very much appreciate this report i hope this is a living document to be

updated what's coming in the next few months and so things are captured here and as things have been completed they walk off and other things get added anyway this is really an improvement thank you very much and i recognize that staff has been doing a lot of the work i have been at the 3 of 5 meetings thank you all for your time. >> item 9 items for future meetings commissioner hur. >> if possible in the next packet when the revised legislation is included include that will be helpful to have deprivations of lobbyist definitions to see how it is

done in other places. >> as i mentioned easily earlier i will request on the agenda for june 5th there be item for an update for the recruiting process keeping the public advised as to what - do i hear a motion to adjourn. >> public comment. >> oh yes public comment? >> hearing none i hear a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? we will stand adjourned 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