Skip to main content

tv   Abatement Appeals Board 92315  SFGTV  September 24, 2015 8:00am-9:01am PDT

8:00 am
>> good morning today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> commissioner clinch commissioner mar commissioner mccray commissioner walker and commissioner mar commissioner president melgar is excused next item to the oath all parties giving testimony please stand and 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 your acknowledge okay. thank you you may be seated the next item is item c one 2 c 16
8:01 am
and these items shall be heard together first, this is a request for rehearing and the aa b will hear the requests on the items together the aa b in some or all of the cases they will proceeded to rehear the cases the initial request appellant come forward has 7 minutes. >> sorry the case numbers are 6804, 2846 washington street heard on may 2015
8:02 am
6805, 2856 washington street and 6806, 2846 washington street and another one i apologize the 2858 the request for rehearing on this case washington have the 2862, and case no. 680823 to divisadero street. >> good morning melinda with reuben, junius & rose i'm here representing the owners of 7 condo unit in two separate buildings those owners are individually requested a rehearing i have with me stan and bret who's a licensed structural engineer
8:03 am
asking. so for a rehearing on the basis of abatement orders i've paced a map on the monitor as you can see and you may be familiar the properties that have been issued those abatement orders are adjacent and a common browned vs. did care the appointment order unfairly asked the appellants to pay fines and repair the retaining walls and therefore the divisadero is are not only the walls should not be the sole factor, however, there is previous and new evidence to show portions of the wall are on divisadero it is the
8:04 am
legal authority previously unavailable historical documents that speak to the original of the wall and the images in a survey document where if so on divisadero we provided a court case with a simple the chinese hospital association that is attached to our supplemental it is the legal standard for a pair of right lanes constructed for repair work and the survey data it represents o representatives a legal error and bret our structural engineer to speak to new evidence regarding the historical documents and stan to address new address for this case >> thank you bret ferrari i'm going to try to do this quickly i have slide here that - for
8:05 am
reference can we use the overhead the reference i'll refer the properties in they're short cut washington and upper divisadero and divisadero place and the corner building. >> this just shows the map where this is washington property divisadero place and the cornerstone building an urban divisadero we went back and looked at the san francisco had historical documents this is the handy block book it provides size and ownership of block by block between divisadero and
8:06 am
washington street is block 464 blown-up it shows that actually, the corner building and divisadero place are owned by one owner this will account for the fact the retaining wall crows the current property line and the one partying has control on lines on both sides of the thought wall we look at the san born map if 1899 before the fire those books were fire damaged but divisadero and washington and the corner proposed are shown as such so that as of 1899 and before 1906 there were properties that the corner lot and divisadero place as well this does not show any property line i don't know when it was referenced it was subdivided but not sure what
8:07 am
that date it. >> this is an overview of the properties in their current fly overview sth this should see from the current assessors map the four divisadero the red is the exist retaining wall and the blue portion shows the portions of the foundations from upper divisadero and washington that are actually on top of the retaining wall the rest the thought red walls are for retaining we don't know how far into the corner, the wall steps down as it cross this property line so what we find the retaining walls were built by the owner for the divisadero for the corner building to provide a level lot for their construction
8:08 am
it steps down a retaining walls between the corner lot and divisadero place the retaining walls we are built on the opposite side of the property lines to maximize their useful property and done without the neighbors consent or knowledge both upper divisadero and the corner were built on top the retaining walls no reason for them to do that it is not optimal condition for a foundation this shows where the foundation for washington is on top of the brick retaining wall and the building this shows the demising wall the floor of the wall what was plastered and this shows the wall at upper divisadero it steps down and not a foundation
8:09 am
until this fence i'm going to go ahead and reseed my time to stan. >> i'm a licensed survey at 26-year-old that specialize in the boundary we have new evidence as a result of david ron's testimony where the wall was boo and they were over the wall we don't, in fact, have measurements taken by our firm the wall is over the property line that the wall is not going we marked the wall and adopted and held the same exact values that ron used to derive this the wall is one inch and a half over the property line i know it is hard to see but in our
8:10 am
declaration the wall is marked additional not bowing in addition to that there was prior testimony all the surveys were the same and that's not the same this was a different offset to the boundary lines we've ignored that and held the boundary so they're the exact property line not bowing. >> sorry to quickly close out we believe the new evidence meets the standards it for a rehearing request and obviously appreciate the opportunity to explain it in a more detail at an additional hearing if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you. i think we'll hear from staff now thanks.
8:11 am
>> john machine for the department it looks like there is is a survey and so if you do decide to rehear us the department will have no argument you, you g decide not that's your discussion. >> thank you. >> economy questions from the commission. >> commissioner. >> i wanted to ask as part of new evidence about the court case from what i read in here it seems like it was resolved or still pend this court case seems to be contrary on who's property that wall fits on. >> it was submitted before. >> i'm not in the survey - it is hard for me to read it to seems clear at the end
8:12 am
commissioner mccarthy. >> if you want to come up as well one of the reasons why i vote the way i voted was because of the survey and the lack of a survey so, now we have a survey i'm a little bit confused is this survey not done enough to say there is perhaps new hearing or take it or leave it will you have the same testimony if you had the survey and i think this would be different the survey that was presented last time management in the department made several decisions based on that and didn't have the information on the new survey so i will speak. >> patrick o reardon is here
8:13 am
and maybe the new survey would have changed the decision i'm going to turn it over to patrick. >> good morning, commissioners as you guys know building inspectors are not survey oversees we look at two walls which are in perilless condition at building inspector saw those retaining walls are back from the upper divisadero and the washington building there's seems to be leaning and cracks there bowie did review the new information and from our last gathering here it seemed that wall was completely on both of the other properties except where it was leaning or had bows so this new survey if i can run
8:14 am
the overhead here so this new safer is indicating 3 survey points on the retaining wall for d l washington street property if we look at the corner right here it shows that the retaining wall is clear at this point and therefore not encroaching on to the divisadero or 2308 divisadero if we can to the survey point the next one it is clear there by some .03 it is almost on the property line the point in the middle does show it is over by .13 which is e
8:15 am
development by an inch nature so it on over to the neighbors property by inch and nature that tells me we can go bart whether there is a bow but at least not a straight line the one the corner and is third point the point in the middle is bowing out it is not a straight line whether it was built or formed over the hundred and 16 years is quite a bit of time maybe movement to this wall so i would suggest that whether it be bow or lean it is not a straight line between those two points that's what i'm seeing
8:16 am
commissioner president melgar. >> can do you do when you have a survey it is over the line an inch one half what do you do in the field. >> what we try to do is use common sense and judgment and understand a hundred and 16-year-old wall may have movement over the years and in cases where it is obvious it is straddling the property line we write one for both sides and they'll have the responsibility we didn't have access to this survey back in may this is a new survey point one survey points on the wall it does show on over ridge of .3 unlawful so the wall is not a straight line between the corner and the survey point it is
8:17 am
deformed another that point in my opinion. >> so i'm just going back to what you advised us when we are heard that this is when the department didn't get into civil argument but to try and get it fixed we expeditecy with what did you say. >> we don't get into the legal let me see. >> i concur we made a decision i was clear if it was was over the wall we needed a survey and he think that bans what i see here this passage they've come back here and i do feel would need a rehearing based on the new evidence and because the survey was one of the reasons i made my decision if this survey
8:18 am
was here the last time we'd have a different conversation so i'm thanking mr. reardon this is the measurement i needed rather than saying take it or leave it i appreciate you're doing that i feel we should have a motion to rehear this. >> and then commissioner walker and get into the other specs. >> public comment? >> stone a member the divisadero hoa we're short on time i'll move extremely quickly you can jump in at the. >> can i ask the attorney is
8:19 am
the reuben, junius & rose indemnifying rep you. >> no. we're on the one side a you, we have no attorney representation. >> at the last hearing a few months ago we presented this document showing from the government website our building was built several years after the appellant they sit on top of the foundation many years the notion our walls was ours is ridiculous today we've shown you a version this document only larger saying that the trying to debunk by federal and local representing e representing the san born map offering as prove our home was not built after but on the government website the appellants presented the document showing our building
8:20 am
alongside theirs they ignored the amendments on the west side this is one click away right here they've miss labeled the dates it is from 1905 the website is 18 hundred map on the main page of the website one click away that shows our property doesn't exist in 1899 but their corner properties did i'll move on the chinese case they've chosen in and out to show you but it is vastly different in this survey the wall stakeholders both properties, however, wrapped around on both sides to the downhill property that is on the downhill a completely different case no relevance to this and the company that did this survey
8:21 am
it the representative will speak but now to the main event the surveys nobody no survey disputes the fact that the beginning and end of the both walls the beginning and end of those on the corners and both ends nobody including the droshlgz and appellants are arguing that and behaving chief reardon they've visited the spot twice in person and see several leaning spots on both walls and there are points at ground level that are bulging over but the important pointed noting none the points are anywhere near points ab are completely on their side of the privately property line tyler hundred
8:22 am
percent consistently and the photos on the new point g it is the most important thing for the point g their showing you no context to see i put a hockey strict as a point of reference major damage to the wall that is creating look at of bowing an inch of a foot thick wall. >> we need to move on to next to member of the public that wishes to speak. >> thank you. >> hello my name is david ron i'm the surveyor that produced the original survey i'm here to duty
8:23 am
dispute this doesn't show more evidence from reardon and the previous speaker talked about i agree that where the balls are at the end of the underneath the building and corners their clear the property line where you're seeing the wall go over the april is in the middle where the backyard and cracking and all of the dangle that's happening the new point the point that basically the only new information from the surveys other surveys he showed 2 new points that's it they don't dispute the that the assistant middle that is the reason why you'll have a new hearing that new point on his mark up is 5 to
8:24 am
apples and oranges pretty much where he took his point and left the mark you want to emphasize is right here above the cracking in the bowing i don't understand why we're talking about a points on the wall with visual damage and failure that place where this measurement taken is not effected to me i take a step back and say at the either thought or end of the wall where the cracks and bows it is over the property line i don't dispute this new measurement if i took the measurement or mushlth are market 5 feet over i took the shot where i took it that's it. >> do you have any questions. >> just one question you had no
8:25 am
new survey you're going on the old survey. >> i don't believe that the new survey shows new new information it is the same as what we've shown i don't know why a new survey triggers a new hearing in my opinion. >> actually sorry since i have a minute left i want to mention the chinese hospital because your firm was the company that did the survey for the chinese hospital it was a downhill property there was a couple of uphill properties that were effected it is connecticut eventuality it is hard to see the property line is the heavy line that runs along here through the wall now the wall when it comes here entirely into the chinese property and there's a major part of the wail on the chinese
8:26 am
hospital property or the downhill property but in addition it to that all the structure elements the columns and the foundation or footing for the wall all appear on the downhill property in addition to showing the property line stakeholders in the middle of the wall all the structure elements on the downhill so say it is a similar case. >> i've got to up to the time but you off your time is up any other public comment? >> good morning. i'm kate with the divisadero homework association i want to state this is inadequate no civil suit we have a gate that blocks off the
8:27 am
whole world from the property line and the two adjacent properties have always come into the properties to take the vegetation grown through the waltz and come on with others experts we left the washington property i've opened the gates their painting the wall they say we're owning 8 feet up i stair i take ownership the wall that's ridiculous you think i'm responsible for dry rot we've not seen a full surveys we're not for years and presented every possible piece of information no question our building was built after the two properties from the last time from the city document not a document in the city they basically miss labeled now a document saying oh, it is a
8:28 am
brown it is not we were if you look at the website built after 1901 it sdmoornt that divisadero and it's been owned by one owner they're basically asking you to say at the corner property it is responsible for a retaining wall of a property two doors down that's what they're asking for it is the same as is the corner property 83 and it's a ridiculous thing the point they give is below it is cracked this is a 12 foot huge wall the only place it at all ininfringe on the property is where it is failing that's the point i want to indicate we're not here because our association filed something we're here because those walls are hazardous i was
8:29 am
walking my doug dog around a corner and one of the owners harassed me and said excuse me. i don't think you should be walking your dogs your building is going to fall down i found a female frightening it is in my neighborhood i walk my dog properly around the block they're trying to say by the way, we say stare at and the gate a ours and it's failing it is our wall someone wall didn't man and woman make it become ours do you have any questions. >> thank you any other public comment? >> commissioners. >> seeing none, commissioner walker. >> i tend to that that there
8:30 am
isn't new new information it seem to me the same information we saw maybe adding a point or two doesn't change anything i'll move to deny did rehearing request. >> second. >> any other comments. >> commissioner mar. >> i'm concerned with the new information but i think that the question before us i wish the staff could be a little bit more definitive i know our building inspectors are not surveys oversees the question ever whether or not the point of that survey was legitimate or not you can play along with it and the same thing the engineer you'll probably know you know that failing part of the wall i mean,
8:31 am
if you shot it a little bit lower there will not be cracks but higher it is bulging over that kind of bothers me no new information you know doctoring what we're voting to rehear this so i would rehear it if that were new information i'm not an expert to say this survey is right this is the one we should go by. >> i'd be interested to hear commissioner. >> i tend to agree with commissioner walker there's no new information it a major enough yeah. new information inform warrant i'm inclined to agree with commissioner walker
8:32 am
on her motion. >> commissioners you know obviously this looks at we don't say have the boats but the new survey regardless how you feel by the early presentation to me it is i think it is relevant in that we have a foot one half we didn't have the last time or inch one half excuse me. down to the walls it is what it is all about and regarding the san born map and those are relevant to me to understand that that information is true or not true which i'd like to hear it in a rehearing i mean at the end of the day, we have a huge responsibility here he think that due process should be given with regards to whether
8:33 am
you feel there is not new facts but looking at this this is a detailed package it deserves a rehearing minimal i'll deny not rehearing it and support a rehearing if i could get a second. >> we can only have one motion contaminate and commissioner lee. >> question for patrick did you say you would have acted different the department would have acted differently with a new survey. >> i don't believe so when we saw the picture of the rule next to the wall where the exchange was at the bottom right there that probably is still the up till hill property and because of the damage and the information of the wall. >> i personally if i you were a
8:34 am
building inspector i would have done exactly the same thing. >> i have a little bit of a followup question originally what expiration said those retaining walls are a headache for consistency and fairness any question before whether it is a shared wall we issue that to both to property owners you, you guys first went out inspectors when you looked at this wall clearly it was failing and clearly somebody was going to get it you - there was no thought to issue to one property owner. >> just to be definitive this has been spoken to the wall projects from the rear of both properties and they intersect
8:35 am
where we come together at the juncture of the structures and where they come together they clear the property line the wall a damages it is bowed and leaning and cracked for forefront is at the immediate fix just looking at it we yes, we would write to novs it it if there a strarlgd at the because of wail it is leaning and crackled it is leaning and cracked in a direction of corner building the 2308 believe so i think i would do exactly the same thing as we did when we first went out there because all the survey shows you is that the wall is damaged to a point it is
8:36 am
because it has damage encroaching over the neighbors property that's the way i see it. >> thank you just to your point sorry i'm getting mixed signals here my understanding that survey shows the bottom part of wall it is one inch one half it shows a inch one half at the bottom the survey is 2 feet out can i get clarification if i can show you - >> so this is the can you see that i show turn it this way you can see point g and the rule is
8:37 am
probably an inch one half away from the ground i'll turn it upside down it works better this is the inch one half of bow i think that's what i see so the rule indicates riffling close to this point shows damage to the wall above the survey point g if there's a crack and damage to the wall in livelihood it causes defamation of the wall that probably gets us to the .13 that's how i look at it. >> thank you for that. >> through the chair i don't want to turn this into a full hearing would the commissioners object if i ask the surveyor to
8:38 am
come up would the surveyor come up and talk to that point. >> commissioner walker. >> i'd like to have the other surveyor answer. >> then i don't want to - i will take the chairs lead. >> if new information. >> the chairs lead if he wanted to call this. >> this is new information the measurement of point g you're not looking at the same photo they're not g that of taken at a flat spot 2 feet up from the base not bowing look at this photo and this is point g we mark our points and take the murths and claimed 3 times the declaration all the measurement were taken place where it is bowing take into account the declaration we took this not bowing above the ground and it
8:39 am
is flat in this one area. >> so the testimony as i look at this photo that is where the bowing is as i look at our photo it is one inch one half onto the property line. >> the wall and the base 2 feet you i ca could have taken it 2 feet up one inch one half if you compare this photo at the base and see where it is there's a crack at the bottom and no crack in the step they're not showing you point g. >> that's the clarification i needed. >> i didn't take more photos he didn't indicate o are for bowing on the prior map to we had sufficient issues on the map when we testified all were bowing we found a point it is not bowing to show it is over.
8:40 am
>> i'm not exactly sure why we're getting confused it photo is sdoemd into to conveniently miss the cracks. >> i see to our point you are you saying that is the exact same photography. >> not. >> this photo was taken two days ago it was marked i raise your right hand my client to take pictures. >> can we see that up close. >> it looks like the same place same stain. >> i don't want this to be csi.
8:41 am
>> oh, please. >> this is the man that took the photos and can i make a point about the photos i took it. >> sorry let me look at these first. >> is this a patch mark. >> you'll see it right here. >> it does look like the same place. >> i'm confused i -
8:42 am
>> okay. this is the little arrow. >> field trip? >> yeah. >> different angle. >> right. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> if i understand i look at those photos that's the same spot. >> looks like to me. >> the reason we say that is because it says g; right? >> okay. >> i took the photo and i took it wider because i got access to the appellants photo on friday so i saw is conveniently was a
8:43 am
tight shot not showing the damage so for your benefit i put a hockey stick and pulled 80 out to see a foot or two off the ground and a short distance mr. above that it to the damage i took it on my iphone we'll zoom in that's point g there are the same. >> through the chair one more thing can i ask the excessive reardon if he will concur that is the same location. >> oh, right here. >> yes. based on the two pictures i believe that's the same location. >> okay. >> okay. >> my phone does clearly show
8:44 am
the g marking with you zoom on this we're appalled by the notation we took a different photo and misrepresented it as the same spot. >> the other thing i want to address yeah. i think we have to - >> sorry. >> we may i call you back. >> got more to say and be any more deliberations. >> call the motion. >> okay there is a motion and a second to deny the request for rehearing roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner lee sxhshgs
8:45 am
commissioner walker okay. the that motion carries unanimously we have item b general public comment any general public comment for items not those on the abatement appeals agenda. >> seeing none, item e adjournment is there a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> okay. we're now adjourned we will reconvene in the next 10 to 15 minutes as the building inspecti
8:46 am
issue. >> homeless in san francisco is a challenging issue that effects owner in the city in many different was as of the 2014 homeless census over 64 homeless in individual in the city to try
8:47 am
to address the issue we've got a program for chronic homeless welcome to the navigation center. >> this pilot project is for people living on the street what makes it different the navigation center is able to accommodate homeless encampments lowell u allowing people to keep their pets and bring their personal bloonlz. >> the full realization that people don't want to be homeless not refuse services but from the services don't meet them and not relevant they're not going to be successful if you look at the budget losses we've got a community sacrifice important people to get food and laundry
8:48 am
we're standing next to the bathrooms it is designed to be a dynamic and brief residential experience where right of on this site city staff to connect you to homeless places to return to family dine is up for medi-cal and all those things that are complicated for people. >> the other exciting thing city agencies come on site and provided the services for folks this is existed to see when the goal of streamlining a a whole processes of getting people on go gentle assistance into housing as much as possible. >> way totally different you can come and agree as please and get laundry services and showers any time of the day and night it's twenty-four hours a day
8:49 am
whatever and twhefr it's not like any other she recalls. >> they come and help people for what it is they're required the issues they need and reach out and do what we can to say okay how can we accommodate you to get you set up and straight never in my mind imagined a program like this this place it different and a a lot a lot that better it works. >> the navigation is center is a collaboration of partnerships too city departments one is the homeless outreach team managed by the san francisco distributing i look forward to the navigation center we'll have our agents go out and help and say don't go anymore over and over send our dayshift out they've meet the population and hang out and hang
8:50 am
in the encampment and transport people and be with them and make immediate impacts with me and my staff. >> bringing our wloongz whatever you go presents a problem this place their help with the storage i don't have to worry about it staying here you know you're getting things done they need to get things down done to get off the street avenue of the hope alsoness is gone. >> they help you if you're hungry go eat if e you need to go places go. >> they're 4th district it awe auto. >> it was funded through a unanimous donation and of may
8:51 am
2015 an additional $3 million to help to continue the program beyond 18 months. >> you see people coming out they're ready to being so the future homes you know how variable the navigation center is my message for the constituents yes something can be done do break chronic homelessness it is being done. >> this is a community that sets an example but i how to pick an area that was funky they've seen we're trying to do is help their neighbors they've seen getting sicker and more frail and broken down on the streets and welcomed us that's a powerful statement people are exist and president in they're becoming to see the movement for folks and people on the streets are only survival
8:52 am
modes where is there next meal and their itch more carefree. >> the staff here is interpretation the first day i have a appointment and everything was made all you do is go through them this makes a huge difference. >> to get settled in a helping hand, to get on my feet, take care of the issues i have and get out of bed and help. >> even though the navigation center has been up in march 2014 the program is creating successful outreach for it's clients. >> a month ago they came to me and asked me to go into a new
8:53 am
program i moved into here and now 3 months later i have my own place it is mine i lock my door don't worry about my stuff it feels human again. >> my name is jaeven alexander an attorney for the san francisco city attorney's office i inspires the tax team give tax advise to the treasurer and drafting tax legislation the
8:54 am
thing i remember any mother telling me as a child but need to be prepared to take care of you've i know you wanted to burger to do something i enjoyed i did not expect anyone to gym give me anything they didn't give her anything i saw her fighting for the things she wanted for home share my name is jason man flovrlz working alien agency an admin assistants at the city attorney's office i felt in the tasks i've been given on the days i didn't show up and held my own for me, i think it is being more active and being more involved in a person to person interaction my grievous bodily harm jobs
8:55 am
includes being a physician or nurse or pharmacy or firefighter and working with animal or the public on a personal level for improvements my sister is the biggest influence in any life because she to tell you the truth me to go forward what makes you happy rather than the most money. >> i graduated from law school in 1972 at this point when was was beginning to be an influx of women in the professional and tries case for diligent operated programs government budgets and a life fiscal legislation came to the san francisco city attorney's office and been here for about 12 years advising think tax matters
8:56 am
i does just about anything to think of lawyers do some things and some negligence letters don't do. >> i'm from the mission and grew up and also there my whole life living there you see others question. some of them oldest and some look like me my age and a lot of them work nanny and childcare jobs and retail jobs i don't know it is being kind of like a reminder that you're kind of lucky to be where you or i guess just the facts whether you haven't gone so far at all i want them to go maybe go on an intrauf for challenging that is facing things they can't get
8:57 am
that job you know kind of challenge and maybe surprise themselves when they get that job and feel better. >> they have been women practicing law for many years but it was so few of them that a lot of the issues hadn't really come into play and some of them were fairly worked out and resolves like equal pay in partnerships in law firms mac that women get fair assignments to be excluded and in the upper levels of government and law firms i consider myself more of a beneficiary of all the women that fought really difficult battles along the way
8:58 am
8:59 am
9:00 am
>> i'm going to call the meeting to order. >> commissioner katz. >> here. >> commissioner brandon. >> here. >> commissioner woo ho. >> here. >> item two approval of the minute for september 8, 2015. >> all in favor say aye? all opposed? minutes are approved. >> item on public comment on executive session. >> any comments? commissioners the next item has been taken off the calendar and counsel and real property negotiator. >> move to move into executive session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor say


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on