district inspector to make sure those things are taking care of in the course of the work she is planning to do. commissioner hwang: i guess as i listen to you and commissioners fung and garcia, i am thinking at this point that the permit holder wants to just go straight with whatever the permit holder wants to do, without really working with and communicating -- i mean, maybe that is not necessarily the fault of the permit holder. maybe there is fault on both sides. but when cases like this come before us that we are sorting through, i am not a contractor, i don't have much experience and all the various areas, but i think if it is within the department's per view to review those, the overriding condition, the denial of the

appeal on ensuring that those items at least get review. i think that would be -- that would be my inclination. whether they come to the same place is up to them. they are the experts. commissioner fung: the department will have to review it. the review questioning, and we have done this in the past, some heightened review by the department? we have done that in the past. commissioner hwang: this list has been presented to the permit holder, yet i think the discussion, i don't think any substantive discussion has taken place. nobody heard today -- nobody has heard until today with the contractors list look like. there was no communication. that would address this, whether they get addressed in a way the

appellant wishes is up to the department, but i agree with the appellant that what is before us is not a property line issue, it is a nov permit. to the extent that we can ask the department and conditioned the denial on reviewing the items in exhibit b, column 2 or 1, with substantive detail, that is where i would be inclined to take the motion. vice president goh: gohb is the it is theb is the appellant list. commissioner hwang: i understand. it's not me and the appellant gets everything day are asking. -- it does not mean the appellant gets everything they are asking for. commissioner fung: let me expand. during the course of both presentations, i was thinking about, on what basis are we

going one way or another? in this particular instance, when it is fairly complicated, we are dependent upon the building department and its staff to be able to be the eyes and the arbiter of what is co- mandated. -- code-mandated. therefore, we are dependent upon them, and i think we would ask for their input into this process. which then means that it will probably be a descriptive process rather than a straight line process. because as they go through these things, other things would come up, other things that would require some type of arbiter, and that would beat the inspector.

my point is i believe the department, of course, has responsibility for reviewing all construction to be in conformance. we could ask mr. kornfield to request from the district inspector to look out for those things that are not necessarily specifically stated in the item list. commissioner garcia: i guess what i am saying is i think mr. kornfield, when he came up, showed us the nov, and showed us the box not checked. and had to do with plans not required. i guess the way i feel about this, in this particular case, that was inadequate, that was in

error, a shortcoming on the part of dbi. and that particular inspector to not have required something greater than what is now required. if it is not plans, then some full-blown description of what is going to happen for the sake of the neighbors who are greatly affected by this, and a complicated situation. it was common walls, party wall is not well known, not well defined. the property line is not well defined. granted, dbi will make sure they get everything done. that does not solve the problem of getting the job done. that is not a burden at all on the permit holder to plan, to decide this is what i'm going to do, this is who is going to do it, and why, and to present his plans to the neighbor. i don't feel like i'm asking at

all for anything extraordinary or unreasonable, but i don't feel as though anyone else here shares that opinion. commissioner fung: i am not sure it is so much we don't share that opinion, as my own thought is it is tempered by the fact anything you put down is leading to a potential fault. i think that may be part of the concern by the parties. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield said there are times where these plants are called for. to me, this would have been one of those cases that called for the plans. it looks like two want to talk. is up to madam president whether anybody gets to talk or whom first. president peterson: that is not

the case. commissioner garcia: that is the case. >> thank you, madam president. i will be brief. i want to make perfectly clear we are looking for some descriptive list from which to start. right now we are in a gray zone. we need to look forward to pictures and words together. we are happy to work this out, but we are looking for something discreet. in terms of a condition, you can narrowly do that, with the understanding it is up to dbi to make the determination, again consistent with code enforcement powers and procedures anyway. that is all we're looking for is some certainty. nothing is perfect, but some way so that both parties are on the same page. i hope that helps. thank you.

>> thank you, president peterson, commissioner garcia. following what commissioner fung stated earlier, the set of plans for the scope of work that is required in this nov will not provide a lot of clarity. this is repair work. what you say, where it needs to be repaired, that is what we repair. there is no nailing on the plans, there is now replacing of plywood on the southeast side. commissioner garcia: no one up here is asking for plans. >> ok. well, simply replacing the dilapidated materials and removing an obvious encroachment, the shed that is attached to the house, this is exactly what is specified in this nov and that is exactly what we're going to do. there is not a lot of gray area here.

it is unfortunate this situation has deteriorated as it has. it is unfortunate these property owners bought into a mess of a property line. it is unfortunate that ms. unterberger has been ill so much of the year that she has been under doctor's orders to avoid stressful situations and she has not been able to focus. at sea has not been working. she has not had a lot of money to do this stuff. but all of this stuff needs to get done. the pit -- the district building inspector will be on site, as commissioner fung pointed out. as he does the inspections and sees other conditions that may be required, he will require it. if he sees the dilapidation is addressed in this nov, it will be closed unless further issues are raised. that is right it really comes down to -- this is what it really comes down to. this list that mr. warmer has put into this briefing is not a corrections list, it is not a

code compliance list produced by the building department. if he wants to discuss that with the building inspector, that is his prerogative. if the building inspector must act on these things -- commissioner garcia: that is way beyond. it was simply requested, and you are emphasizing how simple it is, concentrating on how simple it is, and therefore it does not have to be done, went to me the logic is is so simple, let's do it and provide a list to the appellant of what is going to take place and when it is going to happen. to me, that would seem to be a very simple thing to do. but i don't think this board will require it, so -- >> i have a contractors list he has provided to me, and i would be happy to provide that after the hearing tonight. commissioner garcia: i think something a little more complete and when you put up on the overhead or the computer. commissioner hwang: i think we should hear from mr. kornfield. commissioner garcia: sure.

>> laurence kornfield. we don't usually get a chance to give a second rebuttal. i don't want to miss that opportunity. [laughter] i have a little too bad. i'm just here to answer questions. i have to say that the list from march 26, the attachment, exhibit b, we have a hard time dealing with it. it says "your siding is running on to our property, you're water is running on to --" if we were to deal with this list, we would have to say give us a survey to deal. with it commissioner hwang: is there anything on the list you could deal with? >> there are some things, and some of them might even overlap the notice of violation, remembering the notice of violation was issued at the request of the adjoining property owner to deal with their problems.

it is just a mess. sorry. thank you. commissioner garcia: thank you, mr. kornfield. commissioner hwang: with the appellant be willing to provide a survey? yes? ok. i was just curious. vice president goh: i think that looking at these items on exhibit b with the results of the survey might produce more and different nov's than the ones in front of us. if we are going that route, we need not attempt addressing some of these issues on this nov. commissioner garcia: i am back to where commissioner fung was at the beginning. the clients agreed to provide a list, whether it is complete or

not. it does not matter, this board has put the building department on notice that we are deeply concerned about some of these issues and want to have a heightened degree of oversight. what is the verb? commissioner hwang: oversight. commissioner garcia: oversight, thank you. i would move that we uphold the nov. i am sorry, but pulled the permit to correct the nov. president peterson: call the roll on that. >> on that motion, of commissioner garcia to uphold -- [roll-call vote] mahnke, the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld. -- thank you, the vote is 5-0.

the permit is upheld. commissioner hwang: president peterson, shall we move on to the last item? president peterson: call item no. 9 when you are ready. >> calling item 9, appeal number 10-059, nancy wuerfel verses the department of building inspection, planning department approval at 2514 23rd ave. it is the protest of issuance on may 18, 2010 to mary galvin a permit to alter a building, comply with various nov's, convert a crawlspace to storage, cap existing foundation, roof framing, add three dormers, stairs from basement to attic, replace windows and trim in kind, and remodel kitchen and bathrooms. president peterson: thank you. ok, ms. wuerfel, you have three

minutes. >> i am nancy wuerfel protesting the approval of a building alteration permit to the house next door. this appeals about mistakes made by all the parties that contributed to issue a permit in error. it is also about the unresolved the legal structures on the subject property. at first, the owner has submitted plans containing numerous errors and omissions in the existing dimensions, materials, and layout which do not reflect the present conditions. the proposed scope of work and plan drawings do not fully describe what is to happen in this project, nor are there sufficient engineering drawings to accomplish the work intended for the retaining walls and upgrades. there are inconsistencies between the plan sheets, making it confusing to know which sheet is correct. plan notes refer to drawings that did not exist anywhere. the structural designs are provided to address the impacts -- i'm sorry, no structural designs are provided to address

the impact of the amount of excavation that will have to take place to remove crawlspace so well and create a new footing. i calculate at least 100 cubic yards of soil will be excavated to achieve the intended plan, but safety inspections cannot be conducted with the appropriate plant -- without the appropriate plan to govern this work. the plans show a. foundation to be capped where there is no brick. where there is concrete foundation are retaining walls, the plans are silent on what will be done. it is not clear if the existing brick chimney will stay or go. the plans referenced an intention to relocate an existing second-floor bathroom, but no such bathroom shown as existing. i believe in correct plans contributed to misleading the city review process of this project. at second, the planning staff has performed an adequate review of this historic resources and did not comply with residential design guidelines required for

all exterior alteration projects to residential buildings. there has been a planning department flag on his property since 2007, according staff to provide special review of this building, but this alert has been ignored. had the project been reviewed by preservation specialist familiar with the park side district and its approved contact statement, the potential historic nature of this building would have been recognized and the special guidelines for such buildings applied. also there would have been consideration of the roofline changes for this property as they affect the row of four historic houses. as noted in the letter, the section 311 notification to neighbors and community organizations for the project was circumvented by the over- the-counter process. this project qualifies for a broader review by planning staff and the public. in prematurely approving the

application before there was resolution to the 2007 application for a similar project, which is still active today, it is not clear which project is intended to be built on the property. third, dbi made an error assigning this for expedited review without considering the complexity of the proposed work. i believe the misrepresentation on the plans contributed to the dbi underestimation of the full extent of the final project and to an adequate evaluation of the engineering plans for escalating, storing, and installation of a retaining wall. nobody at dbi appears to have checked the permit history to see there are two concrete retaining walls constructed and inspected in 1989. the reviewer would have questioned why only. walls are shown on the plan, no concrete, and what capping is necessary on the concrete walls? there is no estimation of the medevac excavation to be done it and the basement, knows so well

report required. there is no design for underpinning of the alleged park foundation next to the crawlspace or for any soil retention. there are no calculation supporting the seismic design. the incomplete plans do not trigger the necessary safety inspections required for the projects structural work. the expedited processing cut corners on rerouting application back to planning to evaluate the implications of the structural changes made to the may 5 plant, on which planning based their approval. planning is to determine what effect these changes will have on the attic room and the building's facade. i wish lastly to address the legal structures built in 1984. i chose to discuss the matter of the on permitted horizontal extension and dormer with my neighbor when they were ready to make improvements to their house in 2006. however, the owner eventually did not wish to involve the neighbors and their plants. only after they moved out and

was no chance of discussing this matter with them but i file a complaint in 2009 with dbi to report the un permitted structures. now the legal dormers an integral part of the project and no consideration of my objection because of privacy matter. the horizontal complaint is still in limbo, tied with the still active 2007 application. this is a mess. now's the time to inspect and legalize all the on permit it work that has been done on this house. the neighbors and i are willing to work with the honor to improve the property when we are approached with accurate sets of plans and a senate seat -- and a sincere interest in mutual concerns. i believe this permit has been issued in error because of the misleading and incorrect information. i request to permit be revoked. now i would like to show some pictures on the overhead. i these are the four houses.

it shows from north to south what is a picture from another angle that was on the cover shot that i provided to you. this is a picture of the rafter tales -- tails that are an ornamental cut. these will be taken down. they are in the entire perimeter of the house, which are very unique. i don't have them on mine, i would love to have them, and they are a nice distinguishing feature. just to let you know, this was the alpha house. nobody else got stained-glass windows. i would like to hit least let you see some of the problems we have had with the dormer and the fact there is actually a kitchen here that is vented up

through the top and it would take its path in front of the legal dormer. -- of the illegal border. that comes into my windows and my living space. we have lots of issues to talk about, and nobody seems to be interested to involve the neighbor, so we are here to talk to you. thank you. president peterson: thank you. we can hear now from the permit holders. >> good evening. i have never spoken before any board. please bear with me. my name is mary galvin and i am one of the subject property owners. commissioner garcia: pullet closer. >> i purchased the property in 2002. in 2006, we began discussing with neighbors the renovation to meet the needs of our family.

we have met with many obstacles, mainly from ms. wuerfel. in 2008, it deteriorated to such an extent that we were advised to vacate the home because of excess of mold formation. we had no choice but to find rental accommodation. despite the enormous expense of $4,000 per month. we sustained that living accommodation and paid our mortgage every month. this is an extremely stressful, both financially and in our family life. over the past number of years, we have had numerous conversations, meetings, revealing, re-drawing of plants. however, the appellant is not interested in compromise or in allowing us to improve our house. ms. wuerfel appears to have a personal connection to our property that is beyond reason.

the appellant has produced photos that she took 24 years ago. why produce these photos now? is it purely to obstruct our project? these are photos last month. these are photos that ms. wuerfel produced in her own brief. i am sorry, they are 24 years old. commissioner garcia: i think they have to be rotated. >> that is one. that is the second one. she witnessed the construction of this project 24 years ago. what are we only hearing about it now? we bought the property in 2002. this obsessive preoccupation with our home is overwhelming. she has made it abundantly clear by her past and present actions as to obstruct, protest, and

appeal any project that is proposed, no matter how detrimental these actions may be to the property itself. i am sorry. and with complete disregard for the financial burden it takes on us as homeowners. what is her goal? ms. wuerfel has filed 14 complaints of nov on the property, including abandoned building citation. this is a complete misuse of the statute and abuse of us financially. we are well aware of the continuation of our home. we are well aware of the condition of our home and nobody has a more great interest to fix the home. ms. wuerfel has done extensive research on our home to prepare her appeal. i am working registered nurse and mother of three children and cannot compete with the time she has devoted to this appeal. however, it is baffling to me that she has stated such great concern over preservation of the potentially historical

resources of the subject house. the photo ms. wuerfel has used on her appeal clearly depicts one house out of the four houses that have been significantly altered with a large third floor, both with 10 windows, up four of which are south facing over her neighbor. one may forget in the ceiling this was the subject of discussing concerns of the preservation of historical aspects, not the subject property, are home, the smaller house to the left with an existing door that is not visible from the street. i can only assist ms. wuerfel's interest in percent -- in historical preservation is a recent concern and was not a concern when she built her own edition. this appears to be somewhat of a double standard. our goal is to return to our home in a timely manner. we wish to make it habitable and save ourselves and wish to raise our children there. we have no intention of altering the character and

defining features of the property. our plans call for a far less significant change to the outline of the roofline than miss wuerfel's large edition. there is nothing to be gained by holding up or denying the permit any further. accept further deterioration of our property and, no doubt, for the complaints from the appellant. our hands are tied. time is of the essence. our plans have been approved by the building department, including the historical planner. i respectfully appeal to you to let the permit stand so complete our project, stop the financial hemorrhage that is our lives, and return to our home. thank you. i would just like to put the picture that ms. wuerfel used on the cover of her brief to depict the house. as you can see, the rather large one on the end -- commissioner garcia: move the microphone. >> i am sorry. the rather large house on the

end, this is the appellants property, with the large extension. our home is the one next to it. it has the existing dormer you cannot even see from the street. i find it hard to see how this is affecting the potential historic nature of the house at this time. thank you for your time. commissioner fung: ms. galvin, can you provide to us or early -- can you provide to us orally a timeline of what you have tried to accomplish through your various applications? >> i am one of the product owners, homeowners. i want to go back real quick and then answer your question.

this is nothing new with this appellant. i have a different attachment to the home, as emotional as my wife is. this is a safety issue. the building inspector deputy has been to the property 21 times. my spin on things it is our house is moving downhill. ms. wuerfel lives downhill. when we went to miss wuerfel and told her it is moving downhill and we wanted to stop this brush of nov's a caved. our house has moved 6 inches in the last 12 months. there is a mold report in the brief. we were told to move out, simple as that, move out,. mediate the mold and move out. -- immediate the mold and move out. it