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 violation, 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 property, they can issue a citation to that property. >> commissioner mar? >> okay so i can understand the comments commissioner lee just made what also raises questions we heard it late. i know the agenda item is taking a long time, but the third owner was actually originally sited, they were issued one but they were let off, the department decided to let them off based on their engineer's report. so this commission usually, we don't like to second guess the department. it's not clear to me why we let them off for that. why they were taken off of that

original first nov, because they would be here. if we didn't take them off. so that is i agree, this wall has to be dealt with, but i'm torn whether it should be dealt with by all 3 or 2. we heard that late that you just said. the original nov included the third property owner. >> commissioner melgar. >> i wanted to point out, this is a similar situation what we saw last month on deloris street, it would behoove us to be consistent. i did not agree we should have sited the deloris street property because it was the foundation of the next property that was failing due to their excavation. you will remember it's a very similar

situation, i would also like commissioner lee would upheld the order of abatement. i would not, you know, want to site the owner who has the encroaching wall. i understand it's unsafe for them, and their walk way, i do think that i don't want to get drawn into the civil matter of whose property it is. i think that the wall needs to be fixed if the civil matter goes on and the recouping of cost is dealt that way, that is fine. but the issue that is before us what we have responsibility for is to make sure that the wall is safe. i would uphold the department's recommendation. >> commissioner mccarthy.

>> i concur with the commissionerer's here especially commissioner lee. i put my shoes in the property owner, in this particular case the devisidaro case, the 2308, have been cooperative heting people in there to make their case i think -- the lady forgive me your last name -- kate -- show us the proof where this wall is part of our property, they failed to do that. the department has a black and white situation i think they have gone out and did a good job, calling in the surveyier and talking to them i thought it was a good gesture to demonstrate to them they're making the right desis, the other side also had the ability to produce a survey that would

contradict that survey i haven't seen that. because of that i'm also in favor upholding the order of abatement. >> before we make a motion we will see if there is any other public comment or any speakers that have been up. seeing none would any of the commissioners like to make a motion. >> i would like to make a motion that we uphold the department's orders. >> and on the second item, what's the proper line we declare it's not our jurisdiction? >> the motion covers everything. >> i second that. >> we have a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement. i will do a roll call vote. clinch yes. melgar. yes. mccarthy. yes. mar. yes. lee,

yes. mccray yes. walker yes. the motion carries ously. we need to return to item c, elegislation of officers-- election of officers >> after extensive negotiations and discussions [laughter] lots of fore thought, i would like to step down and nominate commissioner melgar for president. >> second. [laughter].

>> okay we have a motion. >> are we writing on these at the same time. >> yes, we can take them at the same time -- oh, separate? we will do them separate. we have a nomination for commissioner melgar as president. and do a roll call vote. >> any public comment? do you accept the nomination? [laughter]. >> she has accepted, is there any public comment regarding the election? president clinch. ex-president clinch. >> yes. melgar yes. mccarthy yes. lee yes, mccray yes, walker, yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you.

>> the next is for viet president. >> yes, i would like to nominate commissioner clinch. >> second. >> thank you. >> you accept that nomination? we have a motion and a second for commissioner clinch for vice president. clinch yes. melgar yes. mccarthy yes. mar yes. lee yes mccray yes, walker yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item f. general public comment, is there gentlemen public comment for items not on the abatement board agenda. >> there is the meeting minutes. >> the minutes are not ready. >> okay i see. >> we will vote on them the next meeting. >> okay, thank you.

>> item g.? motion to adjourn. >> yeah. >> all in commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. it's 10:26 a.m. we will take a five minute resouse, we will reconvene with the building inspection. (meeting adjourned at