Abatement Appeals Board Upholds DBI Orders for Seven Condominiums Amid Property‑line Dispute

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on May 20, 2015 voted unanimously to uphold Department of Building Inspection (DBI) orders of abatement for seven condominiums at addresses on Washington Street and Divisadero Street, rejecting an appeal that asked the board to hold enforcement in abeyance while owners resolve a civil property‑line dispute.

Appellants’ attorney Melinda Sarjapour of Rubin, Junius and Rose argued that legal ownership and control of the retaining walls is disputed among three adjacent property owners and that DBI relied exclusively on a 2014 land survey when issuing orders. “We believe this is a civil matter that has not yet been resolved,” Sarjapour said, asking the board either to hold the abatement in abeyance or to cite the third adjacent owner at 2308–2312 Divisadero so repair responsibility can be fairly apportioned.

DBI representative John Incheon described the department’s findings: brick foundation/retaining walls showing unsafe conditions, no permits for the work, and a Director’s hearing held Oct. 7 of the prior year. Deputy Director Dan Lowry explained DBI’s practice of citing owners based on the surveys presented and said the department relied on Martin Ron Associates’ 2014 survey when it issued notices.

Technical testimony focused on competing interpretations of the same survey data. Appellants presented licensed surveyor Stan Gray and structural engineer Brett Ferrari. Gray pointed to measurements on the Martin Ron map that, he said, show portions of the wall encroaching onto 2308–2312 Divisadero by small amounts at roughly two feet above grade. Brett Ferrari testified the walls likely predate some buildings, were built to flatten the lot and support structures, show cracking and past repairs, and that while they show damage he did not believe there was imminent danger of collapse.

David Ron of Martin Ron and Associates, the surveyor who prepared the map DBI used, testified in public comment that his measurements were taken at points of maximum bowing (worst‑case scenarios) and therefore recorded the wall’s outward offset at two feet above grade rather than at buried footing level. Owners of the cited Divisadero property told the board the historic record and multiple surveys show the base of the walls sits on the Washington properties and not on their lots.

Commissioners questioned whether the evidence before the department and the board included the counter‑survey the appellants referenced; appellants said a certified survey exists but was not included in the hearing packet because of the additional cost of finalizing and recording it. DBI confirmed there were no permits related to the unsafe conditions and that the department can only act on the information presented at the time it issued the notices.

After discussion about the board’s limited role — whether to resolve civil property disputes versus determining whether DBI correctly issued the orders — Commissioner Melgar moved to uphold DBI’s orders of abatement for all seven condominiums; Commissioner Marr seconded. A roll call vote recorded unanimous approval (President Clinch, Vice President Melgar, Commissioners McCarthy, Marr, Lee, McCray and Walker). The motion carried.

The board’s decision sustains DBI’s enforcement action; civil remedies or cost‑recovery between neighboring property owners remain options outside this administrative proceeding. The board did not remand the matter to DBI for immediate additional notice to the third property; commissioners noted DBI could issue a notice to the third property if further evidence showed a footing encroachment. No further procedural schedule for these appeals was announced at the meeting.

Quotes used in this story are from the hearing transcript of May 20, 2015.