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 existing, it is up to the 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

resoluti