tv Abatement Appeals Board 81915 SFGTV August 30, 2015 9:00pm-9:41pm PDT
>> this is a regular meeting of abatement appeals board. please turn off all electronic devicesism the first item is roll call. vp clinch, here. commissioner mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mccray, here, we vaquorum and commissioner waumer and melgar are excused is commissioner mccarthy is expected. the next item on the agenda is item b, the oath. will all parties givingtume today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you may be seated. next item is item c,
approval of the minutes. >> move to approve. >> i'll second. >> there is a motion and seconds. is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none all commission rs in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minute are apruchbed. next we have item b 1 and b 2. announce for the public and the staff each side has 7 minutes to present their case and immediately following that there will be public comment. item d 1, request for rehering case 68102. shakespeare street decided june 17, 20s 15. action to grachbt request for rehearing. we'll hear from the appellate
first. >> good morning. [inaudible] owner of 120 shakespeare. [inaudible] it is a long process, but-the first issue i would like to bring in, i would is a the history of citations information and one thing i would like to be on the record is there is a missing link to this. the information is about the complaint that is-i would like to show it on the screen. i know that you have the copy of this. >> i want to acknowledge commissioner mccarthy joined us. >> thank you.
>> now, [inaudible] assumption to this but the complainant has been asking for the [inaudible] last 3 years on the property and he [inaudible] 3500 numerous times and they were all recorded. the fine that [inaudible] constructed a storage house, a detached storage house that is 60 square feet and it is masonry bricks, no foundation what so ever. the allegation is that the owner wants shakespeare street is doing construction without permit. i wonder how she knows without
permit. putting all the dirt against the complainant retaining wall, which is a common retaining wall [inaudible] based on that i would like to let you know the storage house which is 60 square feet is about 30 feet away from the retaining wall. [inaudible] no mechanical what so ever. of course that is pretty much addressed by the san francisco building code, which ask defined by the clerk, mrs. [inaudible] california building commission and the code is about 106.2 which is right on the list. it says that less
than 120 square feet, there is no need for building permit and also it said [inaudible] that is one of the items. the next one is after citing that then we have a citation of the retaining wall. [inaudible] to the complaints saying that because of the work being done on the storage house it cost the [inaudible] foundation wall and make it unsafe and unstable and about >> to collapse. on the basis, we have absolutely employed the services of structural engineer. i think you have a copy of that. it came from
-this is the [inaudible] his aessment is the wall is 4 feet high and it is stable and therefore safe so we just actually [inaudible] to the citation that is on site and unstable and to had point of collapsing. this is performed by a structural engineering, which you can see he is a pe. that is additional evidence. [inaudible] what is said about the retaining wall. on the other hand, under 60106 a.2 which is
embraced by san francisco and approved by the california building standard commission is that it is a 4 feet high and under the provision which is i think embedded under the 2013 california building codes which is part of the ordinance approved by the state which is -there is a particular ordinance approved for that and it is saying a wall not above 4 feet high is exempt from the building permit. that is what we have at this point. um, i'm not supposed tosay this because this actually-just for sake of the records is that,
[inaudible] has taken a very [inaudible] decision. he called me the [inaudible] i don't want to [inaudible] for the city. why don't we just make building applications? on that basis we have a investigation report and the investigation report is clear the retaining wall is also 4 feet high and i have a copy of the investigation report as well quh which i believe you don't have it and also for the structural engineer it is 4 feet high. to my understanding based on experience and so on, what we submit today the building inspection is pretty much compliant, so we had the soil investigation report and structural design, everything that is needed,
details and section squz so on. i can sow some information about the structural design which is performed by a structural engineer. then zee the soil investigation report and then we have all the information about [inaudible] and so on which i believe is secondary to that. it was denied for some reason and i think that is within the review and when we asked for-the reason why >> sorry that is your 7 minutes but want to for the records point out the point of this agenda item is state new evidence we would then decide if we rehear the issue. for the
record your new evidence is-what is the new evidence? >> the new evidence is the structural engineer investigation report that the retaining wall is stable on the site. >> okay >> and also the additional information is the agreement between the sit a and the state of california with regards of enforcement of 106 a.2 which is supposed to be enforceable with the city of san francisco. >> thank you. now we'll hear from the department and decide if we rehear the case and if we do there will be more time to discuss the particulars. >> thank you so much for your time . >> the department has 7 minutes, right? >> yes. >> good morning. [inaudible] i'm not hearing any new evidence that
would likely change your decision that you made at the last hearing so i have no further comments. >> inspectorhension or mr.hension, i wasn't here for the june meeting, is it correct that the small structure is roughly 30 feet from the wall or is it on top of the wall? >> we acknowledged at the last hearing that the permit filed if that is issued when the inspector goes out under thar permit and verified that the shed is no longer there, it or less than 100 feet we accept that as the solution so we are not taking issue with the shed at this time. >> commissioner mar >> put aside the shed issue is the issue the retaining wall needs to be rebuilt ? i think part of the
new evidence is the engine ering report sayatize isn't in empinant danger of collapse and is the departments positions that it was in eminent danger of collapses >> that is wiey give time to repair it or we build it. >> if you look at the engineering report that they included for today dated july 27 of this year, it clearly states item b, inclusion and suggestions. new engineered 4 feet high retaining with adequate footing is recommended. that is completely supports the decision that was made by you at the lasthering >> that is the position department, but that is our position still-the main issue is the retaining wall, not the shed?
>> yes, exactly. >> thank you. is there public comment? sorry, seeing none, is there a motion or i can make a motion? >> we move that we [inaudible] >> i second that we grant the rehearing. >> based on? >> based on the evidence of the the engineers report. >> there is a motion to grant the rehearing. do a roll call vote. commissioner-vice precedent clinch, yes. commissioner mccarthy, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner mar, yes.
that motion carries unanimously. on to item 2, possible rehearing of case sickt 802, 120 shakespeare street. action requested by appellate who seeks reversal of abatement. the appellate can come up. >> this is a 7 minute? >> saechb 7 minutes and 3 minute for rebuttal time >> what the building department mentioned about a letter b soph the structural engineering report and this is a little small but it was shown on the definition. the second paragraph is only a recommendation, it has nothing to do with what is the
general findings and observation during the inspection. now, the same recommendation was built in by the soil engineer so that can not be used against the property because it is only a recommendation and what is mentioned in the report is that whatever you have there is part of the norm lal wear and tear when it comes to structure and doesn't pose a safety hazard at this point. thank you very much. >> thank you. the department has 7 minutes. >> just for clarification to the city attorney, should i represent our original report or should i just act as
rebuttal? >> the board has granted rehearing based on the new efds they are interested hearing about the new evidence at issue. >> thank you. just to comment on the engineering report, it acknowledged that the height of the wall is 4 feet, therefore a permit is required to deal with that retaining wall. item 2 on the report, due to existing lateral soil pressure the top layers of the retaining wall are pushing out of [inaudible] so, any retaining wall that is pushing out of plumb is a hazard and needs a permit to repair it or replace it. and then the conclusions
we mentioned earluritem b and item a is approach saying the existing retaining wall shall be structurally repaired sooner better than laterment when you take all those comments not from our engineer, from his engineer it is clear that the decision you made at the last hearing was correct and this information that is newly presented further supports that you made the right decision at the last hearing and would hope that you would uphold your previous good decision. thanks. >> mr.hension are you very familiar with the conditions out there? did you go out there or did somebody else? >> there were a number of people from the department went out there originally when the noits of
violation was issued and shortly before the last hearing 2 staff were out there also. >> if i can ask a question from the engineering perspective, is the high side of the wall, is it hard scape or planted area? >> there is a photograph-let's see. the neighboring side of the wall there is a much greater height drop off. >> it looks like the down hill side is concreate, but i'm curious about the up hill side. this appears to be it here.
ya. the appellate before us today is which side of the wall? >> um, that looks like if you take a look at this picture here, so that picture there is from the neighbors side and you can see there is a major crack there and if i was the neighbor i wouldn't like to be looking at that. in fact, the neighbor has filed a permit also so in the event that the appellate doesn't move forward, the neighbor also has a permit filed so that they can move forward sothey don't continue to look at this and have this hazard impended upon their
patio. >> okay. >> also for the record, the neighbor has already got a order of abatement relating to this condition so they were willing to consider abatement on their property and the cost associated with that knowing that they are not entirely the cause of this problem, but they were willing it do that to show good faith that they are a cooperating neighbor. >> commissioner mar >> the permit they called was to repair the retaining wall? >> yes. >> any other questions from the commissioners? >> um, is the permit that the neighbor pulled, how long do they have to-what is a time limit on the permit? >> 30 day order.
>> 30 days. >> thank you. now the appellate has 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> is there public comment first? >> before rebuttal? >> public comment and rebuttal 3 minutes. >> i believe you asked about what is behind the retaining wall which is inside the property of the owner. this is the-behind the fence and that is actually 25 feet from where the storage shed was actually contracted so i can show that to you. that is a storage shed that was constructed and it was removed and the first citation
which is 102 was removed straight away so leaving the retaining wall issue in tact. now i believe the picture that was actually showed to you is pretty much the blown up area of the cracking and the issue of any out of plumb, [inaudible] significant beyond tolerance then you can say it is structure issue but we have a structural engineering saying the property based on his expertise and license that it is stable and safe. now, i wanted to show the actual picture of the retaining wall, not just the portion that was a little --this view is actually taken from the neighbor. that is the front elevation and this is the side view which
i believe is a little closer. as yoi can see recollect it is out of plumb-sorry? >> lower it. >> there you go. as you can see the retaining wall is what the engineer said is stable and safe and if there is any-[inaudible] he say that on the report that there is no diagonal cracking that will actually make it truly unstable so based on the [inaudible] of the structural? gen ear it is stable and based on what they said, which is the department, the person who performed the inspection [inaudible] i'm not trying to put the person down because it is his job between the qualification of
this inspector citing that it has a structural [inaudible] even some other engineering in the electrical or they don't comment on something that is structural, so here we are and have this structural report that says it is safe and stable. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment? seeing none. any questions from the commissioners? >> [inaudible] >> we haven't, you are right. >> don, do you have rebuttal? >> just one other item then on the report they presentsed. item 4, there was no drainage system to leave the water behind the retaining wall out so that is a further example of
where this talk of [inaudible] coming back, if we have a lot of rain you can have a major sur charge of water and further impending the retaining wall and wouldn't like to be the neighbor on the other side. thank you. >> commissioner mar. >> i have a question. so, john, the other neighbor has taken out a permit to repair the wall and also receive the notice of violation so our opposition this wall needs to be rebuilt again like mentioned sooner better than later so it is the opposition both neighbors are responsible for that wall, is that why we gave both neighbors the nlv? >> yes and i would anticipate if both neighbors cooperate they would take the permit that the neighbor filed, they
would use their own permit and use one of them to remedy the situation and that would clear the retaining wall issue on both properties >> the neighboring property the retaining wall has no other issues with the caish of the palt there are 2 issues there is a shed and the retaining wall, so it was a neighbors permit and it clears the retaining wall issue. the appellate would still need to get a permit deal wg the shed that that was removed. if the appellate used their permit they are taking care of the retaining wall issue and theshed so that permit clears it entirely >> i thought we taurked earlier about the shed and someone said it was below 120 square feet.
>> at the time of the violation it exceeded 100 square feet. we were in good faith that if they have this permit issued it was just enough for the inspector to look that retaining wall and look to make sure the shed is reduced in size or removed. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> it is probably more to the appellate, if you decide not to -i'm a bit confused here, if the other neighbor is willing to do the work recollect are you willing to do this work or repair-i do understand your argument in regards to structural engineer that it is safe and it is not a unsafe wall. are you going to object to the other neighbor fixing that wall? >> as a matter of fact, we discussed that with 3 4 f1
we were not given a answer. the only answer is we were given a 3307 remove ing the foundation from the neighbors side as part of the common property and that only pertains to protection of the neighbors property and also giving him 10 days s before construction. out of that we were denied but we agreed to go for construction of the retaining wall. now, do so that we have to remove the foundation it means the neighbor is not going to take anymore [inaudible] as far as construction of the wall
is concerned so that is what it is all about. as i said [inaudible] is willing and we discussed this many timed and have dmun communications and we agreed and- >> you answered the question, so just if you can answer this--are you willing to participate in fixing the wall? have you got the finances to do it or you don't? you are agreeing to fixing the wall but you don't have the financialing to do it? >> that is what we told the neighbor is we are willing to fix the wall but you have to give us the time to [inaudible] our financing. >> thank you. that's my only question.
>> [inaudible] >> we have to [inaudible] our time here. any other questions from the commission or public comment? i think- >> i have a quick question from the appellate. since you are will toog do the wall with the neighbor, what would be a reasonable amount of time? what the reasonable amount of time mr. hui will need to cooperate with the neighbor to fix the wall because you said they need more time, what is that time? >> it is brt the financing side but we have completed the sign and so on and provided a copy to the neighbor saying this is what we have, but the main problem we have that according to the [inaudible] he wanted all the foundation that is supposed to be between on her side to be moved
on our side and we have to revise the structural design i that increases the cost of construction. [inaudible] he is not going to share it. that is the point of the review is. >> it seems to me 2 or 3 month is enough to do that. i think 2 to 3 months ought to be enough time to do what you kibeed described to get the revised design and calculations done and submit ted to the city for permit. >> the question we have is the neighbor willing to share the cost with us. >> that isn't before us. >> it is mandated under civil code 841 and common ownership so we deal with the cost involved and we are willing to do that. we will construct the wall provided they share the cost.
>> any other questions from the commission? it is my opinion that the wall, the engineers report says the wall is fine that moment but should be replaced. is there a recommendation? i think we should support the engineer said letter but think it is reasonable to give more time than 30 days so it is my opinion that something along theorder of 3 months is reasonable. john stol my thunder with elnino and they are talking about a lot of rain and so water will pond. the wall has been there for a long time but don't know if there are conditions modified over the life of the wall that could make it more vulnerable at the
time so i'm agree fl wall to be replaced but think it is reasonable for 3 monthss. my motion is uphold the order of abatement but allow 3 months for the work to be done. >> second. >> clarify, is 90 days? >> i have a question for the department and maybe the city attorney about this motion. if we prove it would that also apply to the neighbor because it seems like it is a common wall so if they are work on it we say this person has 3 mupth months and that person has 30 days? >> the neighbor has an abatement of issue so they are a are on the same terms >> so they are given the 3 months as well?
>> no, it is irrelevant because the order of abatement is previously issues so if you issue a order now both neighbors have a order of abailtment pending upon them. >> we are saying the nar is getting a permit and pull the permit and will rebuild the wall so in 90 days that will be a new wall. mr. hui doesn't have do deal with it or is the argument then between them about who pays for that wall because we are making the neighbor rebuild it right away? >> i assume only one of the 2 permits we move forward. they will have to cooperate. the neighbors not going to build the wall without having some agreement with the appellate and vice versa. >> that was the just of my question, if we give one person 9 odays
and the other 10 days to get it done, it seems like the fire is under the person with the 10 day limit. >> the other neighbor hasants complied yet and it doesn't have much impact other than we could send it the to the sinty attorney but we won't do that if they are cooperating so i don't see a problem there if you go ahead. >> there is a motion and second. >> we have a motion and second. do a roll call vote. >> restate the motion uphold the order of abatement for 907 days to give the appellate additional time to increed the work. >> [inaudible] >> it includes the [inaudible] this is only with respect to the retaining wall, the additional 90 days. >> yes. >> vice president clinch, yes.
commissioner mccarthy, yes. commissioner mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mu curry, yes. the motion carries unanimously. item a, general public comment. is there general public comments not on the egenda? seeing none, item f, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor, we are now adjourned. it is 955 a.m. i have a brief recess and reconvene at the building inspection commission. thank