with its own lines -- its own walls. but the way this was done in the '50s, there is a single wall in the middle of this building. that is what we have today. we have separate "buildings" with a single partition. they are truly sharing walls. we do not see that often. we have a few here and there, but we do not see it commonly. when people do it these days subdivide come up we would require protection to separate the walls, although we do let them share foundations these days. when they did this in 1953, as best i can recreate the history, i am going to show you the plans. there was an agreement between some of these parties that is not really about a party wall at

all. the agreement is about maintenance of gutters and overheads, it eaves, and downspouts, telephone lines, utility lines, and so forth. it is not about party will maintenance, although perhaps it could be interpreted that way. also, i have not been able to see the record of where the lot line is. we have the separate properties. is the property line in the middle of the wall, on one side, or on the other side? the permit holder, mr. wemer rmer, and his attorney have told me where they believe the property line is. the appellate says they do not know where the property line is and need a survey to understand it. truly, i do not know where the property line is. i am not sure the building

department wants to get into the middle of the argument about who owns half of a stud wall that is 5 inches wide. it is claimed to wiggle as the buildings moved around. also in 1953, the parcel that is under the permit that we are talking about here today had a permit applied for to legalize two units. this is important because this is part of the problem that we have before us today. they had a permit in 1953 to legalize two units, to convert what was a ground floor business into a residential unit. that permit work was never completed. it was never signed off. that conversion never took

place. so it continues to be a single family home until sometime, and i have a permit here from 1993 for this very building, where there was a lot of work underway to provide an off-street parking space. and the building department plan czech staff said, "you never really showed you did a conversion to two units. you have to prove to us you have two units or get a permit to legalize the second unit." the permit we have a will put up on the overhead. -- i will put up on the overhead. it shows in 1993 going from one unit to two units. there is a permit to install a

parking garage on the ground floor on a voluntary basis. it also puts a number of other things that have led, in some ways, to the problems we have today, which i am sure you will resolved easily. [laughter] i am going to move it up because the captions are right over the important part. ok. maybe this will do a little bit for us. here is a picture of the building for which the permit is being appealed. this is the first floor plan.

here is the front of the building. here is california street. that is a stairway to the floor above. it shows a new garage being proposed in 1993. it shows an existing entry, a storage room and existing kitchen area, and also shows an existing studio unit and an existing bathroom, a shower, and a closet. all this stuff is shown as existing. having gone out to the building yesterday and looked at it, it is clear that in this pink line is, to me, where the original building was. sometime prior to 1953, when they filed the permit to legalize the dwelling, i think perhaps -- it is hard to say exactly what happened -- somebody built this big addition and filled in part of the light

well. it is hard to say when it happened. there used to be a yard back here. this opened directly to the rear yard. they fill that in and put a bathroom in the previous yard, and a shower and a closet. it is all haphazard. it is not built the way people would normally build construction. i suppose it meets minimum standards for construction. when the permit was signed off, as it was in 1993, somebody would have looked at it i suppose. but really the permit is for legalizing this for russia and the unit. the rest of this stuff that seems to have been done without permits previously washed along with the rest of this permit. now we have this large existing previously undocumented area of being shown as existing. it has been there for over 50

years, we think. something like that. it has been there for a long time. the issue seems to be -- there are a few issues. it seems to be this little area along in here where the original building ended. there is a single wall. this property has now nailed its interior finishes in to this existing wall, and mr. we rmer's building is completely open. this part of the building is totally gutted. there has been a lot of remodel work that has come to a complete stop until we can resolve this, which is really unfortunate for everyone and the city. as he opened up this wall, you can see that the plumbing is sticking to the wall. i do not know whose property it

is, but the plumbing is sticking right throughout the wall. nails are coming through the wall. you can see dry rot over here. there are leaks in this whole area. so there is some problem related to the way the buildings are attached to each other. it is this whole area that causes the big problem. i will note that the notice of violation talks about a deterioration. in fact, the back of the studio unit over here and is in very bad condition. it is rotted. things have fallen off. it is in very bad condition. can i take another minute or am i taking too long? commissioner garcia: can you answer a question? >> i would be happy to serve. commissioner garcia: would you like a glass of water? [laughter] >> i will wrap it up quick, but

i am sure you will be interested in the details. that to my overhead. here is the floor above. i outlined once again in pink the original building as i think it was, perhaps. and the original court or yard was underneath -- this is the second floor you are looking at. this is where the bathroom was built on the ground floor. there is this big plastic skylight built in that area. it was probably not built with a permit. there are not parapet walls and so on. that leads me to believe that was part of the previous work. then back here on the second floor there is a shed that has been built and nailed to the next-door building. i do not know where the property

line is, but there is a legend attached to the building. it is nailed in, a makeshift shed with a washer and dryer. it is tacked together. apparently, they are choosing to remove that shed. that was part of the notice of violation. then there is a deck that sits above that lower floor studio apartment on the ground floor. the deck has deteriorated. i had to be careful i did not falter some of the floors. there were completely rotted. it was hazardous. just to finish up our grand tour here at the top floor, it is a little bit unusual. the original building wall seems to land right in the middle of a bedroom, so i do not know quite how that happened. a couple of comments.

having tried to explain this complicated condition. plans were not -- the appellant is saying this is a building department issue, and they are appealing because they think the building department should have required plans to resolve this problem. that is the basis of the appeal as i understood. there are two reasons why plans 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 required. 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.