were not submitted. one is that the notice of violation that was written for this work specifically did not note that plans are required. i will put that up here. you can see on this notice of violation there is a box where it says "with plans." that box was not checked. therefore, plans are not required. further, plans were not required because on the permit itself, when we have a notice of violation issued, we have a requirement that the district building inspector reviewed the permits and make sure, or a senior inspector, to make sure that the notices are being addressed. up here in the upper right hand corner, the building department signs in this box. we have a note from senior

inspector brick color ran -- senior inspector rick halloran that it is ok, with his initials. he looked at the documentation and said this addresses the notice of violation. based on that, our staff approved the permit. that is why no plans were requed. i think, as i have said, both parties are right. we have no problem if plans are required, if the board thinks plans are required. a survey would certainly help resolve the problem. i am not sure. but really, this is not a building department issue. this relates to the ownership, responsibility, and property line agreements. i do not think it is reasonable to ask that the building department somehow be stuck in the middle of saying who has to do what. we do not even know where the property line is.

we cannot reasonably try to resolve the problem for these parties. it is very unfortunate that a major remodeling project has to stop in the middle of this while it gets resolved. thank you for giving me the opportunity to extend my counsel. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: what informs the decision to require plans? >> i think that it is simply the common sense discretion of the inspector and senior inspector. when the plants help everyone understand more clearly what is to be done? it would be useful to know what the permit holder is going to do. when i went there the other day and said, "what are you going to do with this laundry shed," mr. poehl did not know. he called back later.

he did not know and i did not know. it would be useful to have if not plans a list of the work. president peterson: what about the contractor's task list? isn't that the outline? >> that was not submitted as part of the permit. president peterson: ok. commissionger fung: it was not part of our package either. commissioner garcia: the think it is sufficiently explained now what is to be done? >> i do not think so. there is this whole issue of things getting nailed to and through the walls, and dry rot and all that. i would think it does not sufficiently -- if i was a neighbor, i would say, "let us resolve all the issues." but i am not the party at issue. commissionger fung: but would you be in agreement that quite a few of those items -- if they

were to be unplanned, there would be a note. >> that is right. "remove nails from wall." how're you going to show that on a drawing. "repair flashing." it is very hard to show that on plans. it is definitely a great area. thank you very much. president peterson: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into -- we will move into rebuttal. >> i will be very brief. i do not very often take the opposition of mr. kornfield, but i think the issue is not where the property line is. the issue is there are things attached to another building.

it sets up a potentially unsafe situation. i need to refute what mr. paul said. i never talked to the inspector about what he put on the notice of violation. i leave that to his discretion. for the record, when i did file the complaint, the department did have all the pictures we provided along with a list of potential solutions. that is in the opening brief. they knew what we were concerned about. unfortunately, the inspector was not able to get into ms. unterberger's to do a full scale assessment of what the violations were. party wall is not affecting the area in dispute. >> i and the architect for mr. warnerermer.

this was related to the permit that was pulled from 1993. the property while is shown fully on ms. unterberger's property. in fact, that is a wall which is shared by both buildings, between my two fingers here. this portion here is in fact solely on mr. wermer's property. the reason for that is that the description of the subdivision shows that the property line jogs inward to accomplish that beyond what we call the light well and lawrence calls the rear yard. this wall is entirely on the wermbeer property. it serves as the structural support for the work that was done on the first floor as well as the laundry shed, which is now identified -- which does not

have the benefit of that list you saw. apparently, mr. paul has been able to come up with that since he was able to visit the site. that is certainly a step in the right direction. we are looking for an agreement. we are looking to work with ms. unterberger to solve this problem. but there is this wall which is solely on the wermer's property which she is using for structural support of the roof of her first floor. she has plumbing in that wall for her shower. it is our ball. we need to be able to work out some way of making that wall have some integrity on our side of the property. vice president goh: the contention that mr. kornfield made was that is the issue. you are saying "our wall."

>> at this point, we have drainage issues that exist between her property and our property, where her property drains toward our property. vice president goh: let me try it again. the wall you're talking about is mr. wermer's property. you're saying it with great certainty, but it seems to be at issue. >> it is at issue to mr. paul. i will not say it is convenient for it to be at issue to mr. paul. he apparently has not consulted the same kinds of information that i have been privy to in terms of the description of the property lines, where they indicate they go a certain angle south by southwest for such and such a distant and then jog. it indicates a jog by about two or 3 inches. vice president goh: is that described here? >> i do not believe that has

been provided. >> paul wermer. it is on exhibit a of the initial submission. it is on the common wall agreement, item one. it describes the property, and then it talks about the job. that distance does correspond to wear a common wall ends. i identify that because it is plaster we see on the unter berger side of the property to that point. at that point, there is an abrupt transition to siding on all three levels. commissionger fung: throughout the brief, it talks about work has been stopped.

can you describe a little bit further what that means? you're saying the interior alterations are totally stopped? >> at this point, that is effectively where we are. we cannot complete work without doing work on an area where her interior finishes are attached and if we do that we risk serious damage. if it cannot coordinate the work -- commissionger fung: is the rest of the interior work completed? >> studds is what we have been able to complete. we still have foundation work to do along with the area of this wall in order to raise the foundation. right now, the bottom of the studs are rotted. we need to raise the foundation in order to fix the problem. there are drainage issues that

have been caused by the work next door. we need to raise that foundation. we only have a rough utilities. commissioner hwang: is the house uninhabitable? >> pi clients are leaving -- are living in the house. they are watching the dishes -- washing the dishes in the bathroom. president peterson: mr. paul? >> thank you, president peterson. jeremy paul for sally unterberger. this is not an appeal of a faulty notice of violation. this is an appeal of a permit issued to comply with the notice of violation. that notice of violation does not talk about the plumbing

intrusions at the lower bathroom. none of the light well issues that mr. kornfield was addressing are part of this notice of violation. we have a clear notice of violation. i did not have the detailed scope of work from the contractor because reading the note of violation it seems pretty clear to me the task list defines the specific things mentioned here. this building inspector knew exactly what he was citing and knew exactly what was needed to comply with this. they're very well may be other issues elsewhere in these houses. there is no question that there are. this is what these property owners bought into. they bought into a three it structure -- three houses that were split in 1953 in an imperfect process in an imperfect bureaucracy in an

imperfect city in an imperfect world. these things can be addressed at their own time, but the thing for you now is in notice of violation. sally is ready to comply with this notice. she is ready to remove this laundry shed and that is clearly mentioned in this notice and repair the dilapidated conditions as the district building inspector specified. anything beyond that is a different set of circumstances. it is up to this board to get further into interpreting this party will agreement and deciding who's while this is. i think you are going to a place that this board -- this notice of violation does not naturally take you. if you uphold the issuance of this permit, let sally get this work done, if there is other work that needs to be done --

there is a lawsuit pending between these people that is going to ultimately resolve a lot of the issues that mr. kornfield described. i do not think it is appropriate for us to solve all of the problems these people bought into with one decision. commissioner garcia: let me ask a question and see if you agree with this statement or tell me what you disagree with. you have represented people before this board with things that are beyond the scope of the permit that are unresolved so as to resolve those in a court of law. would you agree with that? >> i would agree. commissioner garcia: have you urge your client to try to satisfy some of these things? you keep bringing up the specter of a lawsuit as though that is an agreeable place to resolve the issue. >> i would agree with you, except for the fact that this is well advanced. it is a fact of the matter that

this lawsuit was filed a couple of months ago. commissioner garcia: ms. dick stated that was to gain access. tonight, all of the people involved in this, those of us up here, mr. kornfield, and this party for the first time saw a list of what was going to happen. not some great description of what was going to happen, how that was good to be effectuated, when that might be done by whom. to me the seem to be reasonable things for any neighbor to have, particularly a neighbor whose project is being foreshortened by the fact that he cannot gain access to this information. that was sort of a question. do you agree with that statement? >> i do not, because of the nature of the notice of violation the openness of the building inspection process. the fact that this building

inspector is accessible to the neighbor as he is to ms. unterberger and it is up to him on sight to call it as he sees it. if he sees a further violation, he will cause that to be corrected. if he finds it is not been corrected in a fashion compliant with the building code, he is going to write a correction notice requiring that be done. if that requires plans to be done by a design professional, he would require that. but at this 0.2 requirements un -- but at this point to require the additional cost of a set of plans to comply with a specific set of circumstances the building inspector cited does not seem reasonable to me. commissioner garcia: i think a list would go a long way. oliver wendell holmes said the lot is a minimum of what is required in a society. it seems to me the minimum that is required here is to try to meet the neighbor, regardless of

what your opinion is of that neighbor and whether they are reasonable or not to also be unreasonable. >> i do not think there is any intent to be unreasonable, commissioner garcia. i think the intent is to get something done. she got her notion of violation. she got her permit. she got a contractor involved and wanted to get started. she has been stopped. if she had been able to get this stuff done, i am sure the work would have been able to proceed apace. the citation was issued on april 1. she got her permit issued in may. the right away filed an appeal. work stopped since may. it is not miss unterberger's fault. they could have gotten this work done. if there were other things the inspector found needed to be done on this property that was in violation of the code, he would have been in a position

to cite it at that time. their delay is caused by this appeal. commissioner garcia: thank you. vice president goh: following up on those questions, did you have a chance to look at exhibit be in the brief of the appellant? >> let me grab it. i have seen seven different lists that the appellant has sent to ms. unterberger. commissioner hwang: this is dated march 2010. is this the second or the third one? is this the final one? >> i am not certain of this, but i think that there has been a

list subsequent to this, to the march 1. commissioner hwang: you are shaking your head. >> for the record, this is the final one. we did provide letters that mr. burns and mr. werner gave with variations. this is the final list. commissioner hwang: i think i recall you stated that earlier. i just wanted to hear from mr. paul. when you and ms. unterberger review that list? did she review this list? >> she did. >> was there an opportunity would have had to discuss this, or was it -- >> she discussed it with a contractor. i was not involved until after this appeal was filed. commissioner hwang: got it. do you know what happened, based

on your discussion, whether any attempts were made to get to this fourth column, a possible remedy? >> no, i do not believe so. in march of this year, sally's hands were both bandaged from surgery she had experienced. she was not in a position to be putting a lot of energy into resolving the problems that may occur with mr. wermer's remodel. she wants to correct situations that exist on her property. she now has an nov to act on. that is what she is trying to act on. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. kornfield? >> i have only to add that in exhibit a, where it is talking

about the location on property in the description of property, this is not the assessment for the reported property description. this is a property description put together and signed by the property owners. it may or may not reflect the actual property line of these buildings. president peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: just to clarify the last remarks made by mr kornfield on exhibit a? it is the one in the july 15 submission? >> i am looking at the one that says june 24. that is a party agreement. commissioner garcia: thank you.

commissionger fung: the convoluted nature of this particular case is actually quite complex. if you start with the original property descriptions, what is mentioned in those in terms of what is common is fairly limited. if you then go through both sides' briefs, there is a lot of issues there. this board has always tried to find a rational resolution.

we try to find solutions for most people. contrary to the city attorney, people do not always use the solutions we undertake, but it is an effort to find the solution. my gut tells me i am not sure we are going to find a solution to this particular case. my gut also tells me i am not sure i want to put us into that position. if you look at me nov,the nov, e issues that were raised there are not quite as specific as brought forth by the permit

holder. however, the list that they produced, which i believe they are going to be utilizing in discussions with the district inspectors, brings forth some clarity. most of those items are not items that are going to be clarified by any plans. there are notes related to some fairly intensive labor to implement those. if we were to condition this permit as requested by the appellant, in essence it starts to create a side. it starts to create some

judgment on what may or may not the actual conditions. we actually do not know what was here before and what was not. the age of some of the construction is quite old. some of it is probably pretty new. we have no idea whether any of those things were in the original buildings back in 1953 when this building was subdivided. i am not prepared to insert ourselves into what is probably going to be a civil case, and i believe that the -- if that list is accomplished and implemented, it will reduce significantly the items that are of concern

between both parties. after that, it is probably going to have to be decided in a court of law. president peterson: i tend to concur. commissioner garcia: i disagree somewhat. i think the exhibit that was called for by commissioner hwang having to do with a list of things requested by the appellant, the neighbor, are reasonable things. i do not know how broad our discretion is, what we can impose an cannot impose. a think it would be very reasonable to have an agreement where we are able to have them respond to exhibit b

. it is certainly reasonable at least to think that it is covered specifically in mthe nov to offer up some in depth description of how they intend to resolve those issues. it is going to affect their neighbor. it is not unusual for this board to impose some good neighbors standard. for us to try to resolve all these issues, i would agree that is way beyond our scope and probably possibilities. but i am anxious to hear from the two commissioners who have not spoken. vice president goh: i just took a quick peek at exhibit b, looking at the list to see if perhaps the permit holders could address them. i wonder if perhaps, as commissioner fung suggested, the

district inspector could have a look at these issues and make sure that are addressed. i am going to read to them quickly. the first is about flashing, it seems like. the second is about the platform of the shed. then decayed citing are three and four. there is a gutter issue on four and five. these things seem appropriate for an inspector. seven is the problem. it seems to me it is a planter being on the wrong side. it seems that is a property line dispute. it is not within our within our jurisdiction. next, the foundation, then the item about the shed. the shed will go away, so that will go away. then the waterproofing, it seems 11 is a structural support. after we saw the drawing from mr. kornfield, i am wondering if

that is not within our jurisdiction as well. it does not seem to be part of this nov. perhaps it would be. but after looking at this, i am inclined to agree with commissioner fung. i believe he was suggesting go ahead and deny the appeal. is that right? commissioner hwang: i was not really following. i don't understand -- looking at the list and denied the appeal? vice president goh: what i was suggesting is that things are either covered by the existing nov or are not within our jurisdiction. if they are within the nov that is exng