prior owner did an extensive renovation of this property. the only portion of the property that was not addressed by the renovation is this wall. and the only reason that it hasn't been addressed either following the notice of violation or prior to the notice of violation is because miss sang, the complainant refuses to allow anyone to do it. if you look at exhibit 1 of our reply papers. it's a little from miss sang that in april 8, 2013. this is the most recent. she has sent the same letter at different times. i can show you others if you want, but this is the most recent one. it's a

cease and desist request and it charges that dr. engelberg with trespass onto her property and she's demanding that they cease and desist. this is when they were looking over property wall to look at the subject wall in order to plan to paint it. so just if they stick their head over the property line or even next to the property line, because we don't have a survey to show exactly where the property line is, she is demanding that she's claiming trespass and demanding that we cease and desist and when there is actually physical presence from somebody from his contractor on her side of the fence, she calls the police. so what we are talking about and this is something that you didn't read in your staff report and this is something

that's not addressed at the directors hearing and something that you will not hear if you read back the transcript of the department's presentation just a few minutes ago. there is no recognition on the part of the department that dr. engelberg wants to paint this wall, but can't either physically or legally because the complainant is preventing him from doing that. this is something that this board needs to address and needs to understand and in fact there is law on this particular issue as pointed out in the reply statement. the law never requires impossibilities. that's a code from civil code

section 3531. no man is responsible for that which no man can control. that's civil code section 3526. and no one can take advantage of his own wrong or in this case her own wrong, civil code section 3517. this is the law of the state of california. and the department is ignoring it. this board does not have that luxury. >> before we go on to the department rebuttal, i want to focus that we are here to talk about the paint chips that landed on the adjacent property and that's what the violation was about, right? >> no. that's not what it's about. the condition is on dr.

engelberg's property and that's the wall. >> that's not what we are hearing? >> if you look at the report, it was reiterated a few moments ago. you look at page 2 of the department's report, the very first paragraph says -- excuse me, inspect or can speak to that. >> the gist of the first

paragraph on page 2 is that we are not talking about lead abatement or lead chips. what we are talking about is painting over the wall on dr. engelberg's property. if we are talking about removing chips from miss sangs property, we could not do that unless she allows them on the property. the paint chips on her property can be swept up with a broom. we are not talking about a significant or substantial amount of paint chips on her property from his wall. her wall is also peeling. her wall also has paint and was built before 1978 and there is no separation of which paint

chips we are talking about. >> we'll let you talk about that later. >> we'll reserve for later. >> thank you, members of the board, the notice of violation that was issued july 27th of 2012. speaks for but it does have a reference to paint chips because when the peeling paint is repaired, then it needs to be done in a safe manner. that's why it's there because the peeling paint looks like it had migrated onto that property. when we require the paint to the date of to be

done, we would add the standpoint when painting is required by repairing, painting on the side of a building, we ask that it be done pursuant to the building code section. that is what all of this is talking about. now, as far as the statement of the law, that is not the department or city's position. obviously there is disputes between these different property owners but for us, asking a notice a violation, this is a typical notice of violation asking the peeling paint be addressed that it be done in a practice manner . >> what he has to do is both, clean up the chips on the neighbors property. >> it appeared to the inspect or at the time he did the notice of violation that that had migrated from the peeling

paint from the side of the wall. >> do we know that was because of unsafe practices or just the natural? >> no. we did not observe at any time, any work being done to the property in that there wasn't proper containment. just over time there is deterioration. if work were to begin would require proper containment. >> is there peeling paint on the other side? >> i'm not aware if there was. it was not the subject that we were looking at at the time. it's the wall that is at issue before you. >> okay. >> go ahead. so just 2 questions. are there any other notices of violations on the

doctor's property and the other question is, so, it's still a catch 22 because if the paint chips are falling naturally because of ill repair, but the property owner cannot repair it, that's going to be a never ending process. is that not right? so, yes, he should clean that up, but he has to go on the neighbors property to do it, however, he can not resolve the structural problem which is take off the old paint and put on new paint. so has that been addressed? >> first of all let me speak from a staff standpoint whether he can get on the prior or not, we are not the trier of fact. we don't know the expertise of whether that is a case or not.

we know there is a history between the property owners and give them time to work this out but when we see this paint condition, we write a notice of violation. when we write a notice like this and someone needs to go on the property and they can work it out and work out a way get it done. we have properties in this city and they are usually reciprocal and the work gets done. this is one of those situations where there is a dispute, but when we write the notice of violation we are not able to determine that is the case or not. we still have to write the notice of violation. whether it is factual or not that he can't get on that property, i don't know and i can't make that decision legally. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yeah. it seems like damned if you do and damned if you

don't. so i guess the question is, recognizing that. >> yes, sir. >> and recognizing that testimony and letters that it's our best intentions to clean up this but we can't. shouldn't the department's position recognize that and is the appellant here toed -- today. >> from the standpoint of the department as i made my comments originally, if there is evidence in the package that states that, we are not going to restate the position of either party. had there not been that information, then we would have perhaps commented and provided information for you. there is information from our standpoint so you have the position of both parties. >> if i'm on-the-job site and i have a permit and the inspect or says you need to correct

this. i have the obligation to correct it. with that in mind, would it not be who of the department to ask the hard question why this lady is resisting to let you on the property to correct the violation. >> thank you, she has information that she's going to provide you that she believes she's being reasonable as well. >> she's here today? >> yes. i think you need to hear from her because from that standpoint we can't make that determination. she's given us documents where she believes the property owners hasn't acted reason ably. we can't make the determination who is or not acted reasonably. we have given the information in front of you. perhaps you need to hear from her as well. >> any other problems with that property other than this wall? >> no. there are no other notices of violation. just this particular one. that's why we

extended this out 3-4 months to try to see if they can come to an agreement. we do try and facilitate these but in this situation we couldn't get them to agree. >> is your testimony there that there was other problems with the neighbors? >> no. his question was there any other open cases. there are not. >> so with the remodeling and i improvements done on the property. >> i wouldn't have that information. we were dealing with the complaint from her regarding the peeling paint. >> there was no issue brought to your notice prior issues with these neighbors? >> no. >> the only standing issue is what's before you today. >> are you aware if there are

any children under the age of 6 on miss sang's property living there? >> i'm not aware if there are. that would be something that and my inspect or has not observed that. there may be some recent developments. >> thank you. >> we hear from the complainant? >> the complainant isn't a party but she can speak on public comment. >> we are probably not ready for public comment. now it's time for his rebuttal. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> first of all the department has just dismissed they -- admitted they are ignoring the elephant in the room, dr. engelberg's ability to comply.

he's legally prevented from doing so and even by the police. by them not knowing if this is a property issue, it's disin genuine. it's obvious from the photographs that you see, anybody out there can see that the access to this wall is solely from miss sangs property. if the department has legal questions about this issue, which to suggest they do is just unbelievable. if they do have legal questions, they have the city attorneys office they are refer to. there are literally more than a hundred attorneys in the city attorney's office. you have one deputy sitting here today. the

department can request legal advice in situations such as this with no problem at all. i can seek to that myself because i myself was a deputy city attorney in the code enforcement division and i personally dealt with these sort of issues when i served with the city. so to suggest that the department has no way of ascertaining is ridiculous. >> i have a question for you. do you understand the seriousness of the lead abatement and you understand it takes a certain procedure to do that? >> i do. we have an epa certified contractor sitting here today to respond to that. we are fully aware of what is

required with respect to reimmediating this solution. >> thank you. >> that's been the case for 15 years. >> i understand. what's in front of us here today we want to get to the bottom of this. we understand there is obviously some bad tension about this. and we with respect that, but the focus for us now is to figure out a solution here. >> the solution is for the department to cite miss sang also for the violation and to enforce the violation on her as well so they can get onto the property with the powers granted to it by the administrative code and to get

this problem reimmediated. dr. engelberg is willing to pay any reasonable expenses. as long as the charges are reasonable he's willing to pay them. that's not the issue. as far as being reasonable, i would like to, the most recent tempt to revolve this issue outside of the compulsion of the government, is contained in exhibits 23 and 4 of our reply. a fellow named joe butler called me and e-mailed me a couple weeks ago and told me he was representative for miss sang and he was going to help resolve this issue informally.

we have e-mail interchange in order to resolve this issue and he copied the inspectors and miss sang as well as me. i also copied people in my responses. it looked like we were going to resolve this issue. if you read these e-mail interest -- inter changes. we were going to try to resolve it before this hearing. when it became clear that he was being reasonable and that he was -- may i just finish? >> yes. >> when it was clear he was going to be reasonable and in fact there were chances of us resolving this matter before today, miss sang disavowed any connection with them and

rejected all of his efforts. if you also read the exchanges you see the tar pits were also moving as well. >> one question? >> i'm just wondering when did dr. engelberg purchase the property? >> he purchased the property in 1997 and there was an on going dispute at that time with the previous owner. the previous owner was trying to paint that particular wall and miss sang was resisting in fact i believe the previous owner was involved in a lawsuit which resulted in a judgment of 6 figures with miss sang. >> i just clarified the owner was sued by miss sang and

because of the interference, she hosed off the pain on the wall. she had a judgment of $141,000 against her in a jury trial which was reduced to $101,000 which may explain some of her bitterness to an allowing the access. she did allow me access for 2$200,000. >> any other public comment? come forward, thank you. >> this is the photo of july 4. when we are in our home. this is from the came rachl --

camera. the 2 colors. the original was blue and now it's orange. this is the carpenter. he scrub the paint. some of them are different color. yes we called the police. the police asked them not to do that again and he said we won't and the police, after 10 days later they trespass again. really the paint is all over. we have to professional come to inspect. he said you have to call the city and the city can inspect before he can give us estimate. this any work in the state law, you have to have

state certify anything regarding lead paint. we have the right to ask them to comply with that law. i have maintained my position. you can see the letter i spelled out in september. i would grant the permission for your worker to enter the property only workers that is properly certified and liability insurance. this is my legal right to have that information. he has refused. instead he spent the time and effort to provide those things. he has provide nothing. and now he is not -- you have to be personally certified to do the work. we just ask who is the person to do this work has certification. i have not

received a single document. all the time is attacked me personally. he's filed a lawsuit in the court and acquired title. the court already ruled. they don't have an easement. he's responsible for preventing the project from moving forward. we already said we give you a document that is now filed again and again. you have to have a property certified and give us that information. you are working on our property. we have to be protected. somebody fall, you do something. he already told me when we are not there he come down and he did that. he said you have to sue me and this kind of attitude has been going on for a long time. it's because of who i am and then

they treat me differently. that's all. there is more photos. >> i'm sorry, your time is up. we have a question for you. >> miss sang, i read back and forth with joe butler and so the trelses that are there that have -- them growing on them are yours and you don't want to remove them. >> no law requires to remove anything. by the way, i have another neighbor that has the same -- we grant permission to paint and also he has permission to remove ivy but who are they coming, the person's name and identification. >> i understand. i think they are reasonable. what's the space between the trels and the wall? how much space? >> this in order to have attach

to that. this is happened for a long time. >> on the picture it didn't seem like there was that much space in order to do proper containment and stabilize the paint underneath. it seems to me to be only like maybe 3 inches, 5 inches. it doesn't seem like there is enough space to do proper abatement. would it be acceptable to you if dr. engelberg removed that and put it back? if he bears the cost of that? >> the detail have the portion by me. i want you to understand for this month, we have been begging him for that information so we feel comfortable who is coming. are

they certified, e p a certified. the company working on our property has to be certified. >> i understand. i'm asking if it would be acceptable to you. i understand the issues from what i heard from his representative, seems like he was willing to hire a certified contractor and i'm hoping provide evidence of certification of the workers. so if we can get that far, i'm asking you, it seems like the next i mpediment is the trels, is it acceptable to you? >> if it's reasonable. first they have to provide the information to me so we feel comfortable. we think in san francisco is everybody equal, you are not. if you are asian

or chinese you are treated differently. your rights are not recognized. this has happened in the past. you want to do something. they never tell me in the court. i tell them, you give us a -- and statement that you are not going to damage the property. >> he refused. he said i come to your property because i need to do something. that is the attitude that is going on. he's tell me even today. he spent all the time to do that instead of giving me the document. this is a person going to his property to certify the identification. my other labor would do that. he give to me 2 days later he come to finish the whole work. so yes, he would not do that. i don't understand that why you think as long as i miss something. i come to your property. i don't have to comply with the law.

this is, i don't understand that, really. i think that you understand. i have been trying to be cooperative and from day one, you can see the letter. this is the last letter. i'm asking him. he get a notice of violation. i'm the one approaching him, this is what i need from you. he doesn't respond to that. >> i have one last question. have you guys tried mediation? >> no. i would like to -- because my mother was in emergency, she just passed away this week, sunday. i'm under pressure. i said can you exchange and ask them to give me information. instead he asked me to remove everything. i'm not the expert. you can do this to contaminate. this is