ready to begin good morning today is wednesday june 17, 2015, this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board i'd like to remind everyone to turn off electronic devices the first is really commissioner melgar commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner walker and commissioner clinch and sxhaech and commissioner mccray are excused we have quorum and the next item is item b the oath will all parties giving testimony today please stand raise your right hand

do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? to the best of our knowledge thank you thank you maybe seated. >> okay so i want to announce at this time that two items on the agenda number 3 case regarding hampton stare street and case regarding hampton stare street have been continued any members of the public that came to speak to that item? no. okay. seeing none item c approval of pins discussion and possible action to do you want the minutes for april 15, 2015 is there a motion? >> yes move to approve. >> second. >> are all commissioners in

favor. >> i nancy pelosi's minutes are approved item d new appeals and orders of abatement case shakespeare street shakespeare street san francisco attorney for the appellant reuben, junius & rose action requested by appellant at the april 15, 2015 the aa b granted did jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to administrative code appellants ask reverseal. >> first hear from the department thank you. >> good morning. >> good morning john for the department first, i'd like to congratulate our new chair think outside the box

shakespeare that is a single-family dwelling is a route wall that is urban save that is near the property lineis near the property line to 225 - that concludes my presentation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions after the appellant. >> i'm sorry can we i just had a quick question it is not clear

from the pictures what was going on it seems like is that behind one 200 shakespeare the wall is in question sort of downhill i remember seeing this case before looking at the pictures actually confused me more. >> at the rear of the property. >> uh-huh. >> and adjoining a street. >> it is downhill or uphill. >> downhill. >> okay. yeah i see that but - >> but that looks like the side yard. >> are we looking at - >> yeah. that looks at - >> i think that might be where

it is. >> i'll show you - >> okay there. >> so the building this is the rear of the building and this is the area in questioning and the retaining wall is at wheel. >> i see okay. thank you. >> so it's back here. >> can - could you put that map back up the plan back up. >> the one 20 shakespeare is at the left and the adjoining neighbor on the right. >> not shown on the drawing but but the neighbor - >> at the rear and the neighbor is downhill below the level of

shakespeare house. >> yes. >> thank you inspector. >> thank you. >> okay. the appellant. >> come forward. >> sorry i forget to announce both parties have 7 minutes for the presentation and 3 minutes for the member of the public. >> i'm the spokeswoman for the gentleman now the service is no longer required we submitted an additional document to you now the first agenda is that we're trying to dispute or refute the first citation that one that one we are saying that you know the structure separate permitted for building

structured are structured requires both permit now to our understanding the inspector measured the floor sitting on natural ground okay. those are the 2 hundred square feet he mentioned existing storage i believe dissects all right. so now the citation actually led to citation which is 101 excuse me. >> the one 02 dot one the unsave building now the 1016 dot one, if it is a masonry bricks on the ground i wasn't permitted to do that and

actually dispute the foundation beneath that we have a picture when the flooring was actually moved no foundation no permit instructed and i'm going to it - i think that is on this one. >> commissioner walker do you have a question. >> yeah. i see i mean without the brick - >> i can explain that later on. >> that is the area of the storage shed and the floor which is this one here is just on the floor. >> uh-huh. >> some are no foundation nothing structured that can say that is a permanent structure okay now on the site plan shown by the dbi that's right you can see from this point that the actual

storage shed is about 35 feet away from the retaining wall and this is where the citation description because of this you know the dirt went to the backside and so on across the unsave you know of the structure and there was no mechanical use you know putting the pipe on and the masonry bricks and the storage shed or the power tools pretty much is manual itself so the point as we discussions about the neighbor that's been asking for a compensation or you can see restructuring of the retaining wall for the use the gentleman acquired the property there's no rain for us to constrict the wall it was a a

long time ago if you look at the mls that was submitted to you the mls the property actually was built before the complainant and the property has been there for a long, long time even before we sold the property the way we look at it there was a discretionary about the plumbing one inch from the 4 feet from the top of the retaining wall okay. so the issue is the citation which is one 06 actually could you have been the california - the san francisco building codes that is - okay one 05 and the one 06 a dot 2 it means that the storage house was

built 10 by 6 and it didn't exposed one inch four feet as far as the building permit so that's the argument what is it all about and the citation is that such that it requires a building permit so one 05 building code and one 05 is the same thing no permit for the storage shed explicit exceed one square feet and the actual storage shed are one by 6 we have the photograph of that storage shed that also i think this one here. >> can you put it on the overhead. >> face down. >> face up in the direction of you. >> as you can see the distance

from the space of the storage shed from the retaining wall is 5 feet and to you know effect or impact on the retaining wall itself this is one of the issues that, you know we would like to from the citation based on the california building codes and san francisco building codes as well now the second agenda we have is the citation of one 02 dot one which is fine as a unsafe building with the citation all of the charges being brought against the gentleman like you need to have a permit for this

you have to have is structurally assigned and the contractor to do that so as a matter of fact those charges doesn't apply under the what is cited a one 02a dot one because the one 02a dot one unsafe building is a fire hazard to so it says no person but limited to the fire hazard the point is the retaining wall is a wall that didn't have properties to constitute any fire hazard it is totally a different charges against the retaining wall itself so whatever charges being billed to us for unsafe building and so on didn't apply and besides if it don't apply it is 4 feet as

high or 4 feet below under the california codes and the san francisco building codes didn't need a permit the main questions actually things we would like to whatever the charges one 02 dot one is not applicable so we want the board to reremove the amendment. >> any commissioners have any questions. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> inspector we have a couple of questions for you thank you. >> just to point out the neighboring property at the street they were issued an order

abatement of march of this year for the same conditions for the retaining wall and the retaining wall. >> they have and filed the permit and around that time february 23rd to a retaining wall in rear so it was property line adjacent to 126 shakespeare so basically the property owners have filed the permits by filing them more properties are acknowledging they're a problem at the retaining wall and if one of the permits is issued inspectors signed off then that would deal with the issues on both properties but for both properties on the leveling the playing field if you pull the abatement on one 20 shakespeare

to the board of permits filed they'll be worked together and one issued and signed off. >> commissioner walker and then. >> thank you can you respond to the claim that the shed that is sited not requiring one that was the claim by the appellant. >> the shed was originally sited as being greater than hundred square feet it was likely the size was reduced when they filed that permit they made reference to the retaining wall - on their permit they made a statement confirmed the removal of structure on the rear from

the arranging permit from the existing shed is less than one though square feet they'll take issue. >> okay. thank you. >> the same question. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> rebuttal time. >> yes. you can come up. >> since the dbi mentioned that was not non-descriptive it conforms the one 05 and 67 a didn't need a san francisco permit i forgot to show you how the retaining wall was if so look at the back of the retaining wall inside the property itself this is set back was not all the time whatever it inside has always been a set

back so the citation of the one 02 dot one pretty much is inappropriate and if you look at the retaining wall this is the this view use taken from the property of the complainant so we were asked you know to given a chance to get in. >> turn it. >> there you go perfect that makes sense. >> it is like almost completely flat i wanted to give a close view of the retaining wall itself now that is a left view of the reflecting there for a long, long time and serving both property okay

we have the right side view now, one thing showed on the picture of dbi the parking this is a normal the way we look at it the normal sentiment but if you form the retaining wall the only distance from 4 feet below is below this and it is 4 feet the blood the california building code you don't need a permit for the retaining wall you know from the ground and it was 4 feet so the california building codes and san francisco building codes requires about 4 feet. >> let me ask you those pictures were taken in the side. >> prosecute the property of the complainant.

>> you're here representing the property owner are you an inspector or a structural engineer. >> i'm a property inspector. >> excuse me. >> property inspector. >> i've seen retaining wall especially if you have a certain lens and so and so, i measured that with the looking into the property and, of course we didn't use the statement as the retaining wall is really not unsafe so that's what you know we would like to bring and besides the fact all of this is just a secondary issue because the actual citation one 02 dot one didn't apply to the retaining

wall unsafe the one 0 it dot one is a fire hazard and - >> thank you okay. thank you. >> rebuttal from staff or is it public comment. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> why don't i ask could the department speak about the retaining wall and your finding what they were. >> if you look at this photo the date is june 12th of 2014 uh-huh and so the foundation at that time and as you can see that the retaining wall is tilting and there's a huge crack vertical crack in the middle so the violation relates to it at a

time so to clear this case we need a permit like they were to claim the retaining wall no longer exists a change in grade or whatever we need a permit to show it is removed and no longer needed are a permit to repair or replace so and in regards to what is there we need a permit now that is different from the three condition. >> commissioner mar. >> so this wall looks at higher than 4 feet is it because the grade is from one bropt to the next and there was some indication you know a different information in the file that maybe the grade was changed and that's where their concerns as

well but sometimes, it can change grade to look like a retaining wall is no longer needed but not supposed to change did grade without a permit a lot of questions dealing with the permit issue. >> is that okay commissioner mar. >> yes. >> yes commissioner that's really with the dbi the code you measured the retaining wall not above grade so 6 inches or 8 inches below that's what you count. >> thank you commissioner lee clarification on the photo that's a photo from the shakespeare side of the - >> not neighboring arrest; correct. >> ; is that right. >> it's the neighbor so 31 they excavated on the top.

>> on the other side. >> the rattling was made back and forth we have to confine ourselves to the time it was written i mean, i'll be speculating if i rely. >> it didn't matter what caused if in terms of our action we're looking at the exist conditions. >> exactly. >> to both properties to our chart here i think is to weigh in on whether the appeal has merits you know you have to somehow not done an assessment that is correct. >> absolutely, yes. >> thank you. >> oh, commissioner mar. >> did you have a question. >> yeah. this might be the last one but we have a lot of

retaining issues and one of the disputes is who's property lines is it on is it the department position it is a shared retaining wall. >> for this case both property owners have filed permit so if one permit move forward and the other property owner works with the property owner moving forward we'll be able to close both cases into properties based on an initially permit signed off even though it is only one, if we sign that permit for a retaining wall at the rear of those properties one permit will suffice. >> for clarification inspector it's not the before me property owner hates filed it only the

shakespeare. >> exactly and they didn't appeal the order of abatement it was issued to them. >> i see thank you. >> i think there is public comment everywhere already heard if you. >> can i explain a little bit. >> no. i don't think so thank you. >> any public comment, public comment is there a motion? >> commissioner walker please. i feel that our job here is to look at what the department has offered as a solution to this i think that those violations are appropriate and i think that the solutions that the department will work with these property owners on makes sense to me so

i'd like to move to uphold the order of abatement i would like to hold it in abeyance for thirty days to act on the permit and maybe i don't know if thirty days is an appropriate time to clear those. >> yeah. i believe that will be an appropriate amount of time to do the work. >> okay. thank you. >> hold in abeyance for thirty days and assess fees. >> is there a second or a comment. >> i'll second the motion. >> there is a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement and hold it in abeyance for thirty days to act on it and impose an assessment of costs any public comment on the motion? seeing none i'll do a roll call

vote >> commissioner mar i'm sorry timing commissioner mar and commissioner lee commissioner mar commissioner walker okay. the motion carries unanimously thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. on item 26811 24 u 34 baltimore way tiffany action requested by appellant seeking order of abatement to allow additional time to complete the time inform legalize the rear deck. >> good morning rosemary this is a single-family home members of the board there was a couple

of issues in march of 2012 one had to do with a bathroom that was constructed without permit a building permit has been final we're left with an unsafe situation the rear deck a two second-story you see the photos in our package and the notice of violation was issued sometime ago the property owner has secured a building permit that was issued in february of this year no work has been completely our southern is that this is unsafe so this is the second-story structure in the back and public festivities let me give you details as you can see there's significant deterioration and i don't believe that the official time should be given

this is susan avenue and it is an occupied structure i'm going to ask it not only not give me her time she's not started work but modify the order to compel until that is restored or rebuilt within 5 days to do emergency shoring or completely fix this as far as the door off the second-story that they gain access be completely blocked not to use this we've tried to work with this property owner and have asked her to do this hoping she'd address this what happens she's dragging it on we know about the emergencies and i've worried about tragedies an