position that any damage caused by the collapsed roof is outside the jurisdiction of this board because they're talking about monetary damage, how to fix that, and that has been for the insurance carrier of both sides. they are negotiating, trying to figure out what the damage is. as for the question of illegal demolition, i believe that the planning department and the building department should answer that. what they are saying is that they think more than 50% of the building, whether it is linear feet on the foundation or vertical services, -- surfaces, have been demolished, but they have submitted absolutely no proof. they have not showed this board

how the calculation was wrong, and as far as i know, the planning department will address that question. and also, the building department was out there, so they had looked at what was acknowledged that was approved on the plan and what was -- what had remained that should have remained, and my understanding is that there is more remaining than was slated for demolition, so i think that allegation is not founded on facts and is something that they threw out. as far as the new letter that just came, this is the building, i believe, the other adjacent building. it is fairly clean, so clearly, they can clean the sidewalk.

in front of the construction site. since the site permit has been issued and the addendum has also been approved and issued, the addendum is identical to that covered by the erroneously issued structure will upgrade permit and the foundation permit, -- issued structure will upgrade promote -- structural upgrade permit and the foundation permit. so i would be glad to answer any question you ask. vice president garcia: if you would get to the issue of the excavation. >> in the garage, away from the

parking lot, and it goes down 7 feet. but the perimeter foundation does not open on the adjacent property foundation, and because the site is basically very hard clay, it was the opinion of the engineer that there was no danger, and therefore, under the civil code, because it is away from the property line, the permitee did not believe that he has to get any permit because there is no danger to the adjacent property. vice president garcia: and,

therefore, no notice. >> and, therefore, no notice. excavation. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner peterson: i was interested in the prior owner and the previous owner. some design. >> my understanding from their argument is that they believe what was changed is the amount of wall that has been demolished. they do not believe that the demolition is within the scope of what is allowed in the planning code, and we have followed -- the architect has followed a very vigorous calculation process, and it has

gone back and forth, and the department will come back and say, "no, we think this should also be to undulated," so that accounts for the difference -- "we think this should also be calculated," so that accounts for the difference. even with that final calculation under the planning code, under section 317, it is within the 50%. commissioner peterson: thank you. commissioner hwang: on the demolition question which was raised by the appellant, how do you respond to the argument that the collapsed roof has, in effect, created further, in effect, i mean, the argument as i understand it is that extended -- it made more of the property characterized as

demolished or demolition, and then, i would assume, exceed the 50%. >> no. first of all, the roof is -- when the roof collapsed, somehow, the wall that was slated to remain has collapsed, but the fact is that wall is still there. it has been propped up, so it is there. it has not collapsed. and, in fact -- commissioner hwang: but it will be gone, right? the wall has lost its structural integrity? >> no, the wall has not lost its structural integrity, because sometimes when you open up a wall, some have dry rot, in what they do is they put a new -- and what they do is put in a new 2 x

4, and that is pretty much standard in the industry. a diaphragm to keep the two exterior walls in place, but i am sure that he can explain that better. commissioner hwang: i will also a way for planning to address the demolition question as well. thank you. vice president garcia: i have another question. it has to do with, appellants council -- the appellant's counsel has received an n.o.v. your client will not grant access? what is the reason? >> the n.o.v. that was issued to

the appellant was due to our original construction -- due to a regional construction defects -- due to our original -- due to original construction defects. i had a conversation. the wall is in place. you do not have to destroy the wall. and then after they fix or whatever they do -- and my client does not have a problem in terms of cooperating with them as long as there is a very strict time limit where they have to perform the work so they cannot stretch it out, one year,

two years, when my client is not even halfway finished. and that would allow them access to their exterior wall, which is behind our clients and exterior wall -- are climate -- our client's exterior wall. i will go to the structural defect, construction defects. what well have been -- what happened, and i was there, when they built their building, everything that was below the roofline of my client's building have building paper, but there is no siding or

plywood on the outside, and the moisture comes through the paper is no longer adhere to the building, and that becomes also water intrusion, and also, in other areas -- further down on the ground level on the first floor, some of that where there is siding, the sighting usually -- citing -- siding, it was like that, so, yes, they definitely need to do something about that, and i am not quite sure when it gets out of the first for what can be done, because now we are having to talk about the second floor, actually the floor above the garage off before you can get

the water damage out. vice president garcia: ok, and then my last thing -- >> however, there is one solution to prevent further damage, but, again, this is something she has to agree to. after the building is completed, flashing can be installed between the two buildings to make the gap between the two buildings from water intrusion, but in order to attach the new flashing, we will require their permission to attach the flashing on to their building, there with, so they have to give permission. -- their roof, so they have to give permission. vice president garcia: that would not solve the problem? just the flashing? >> the thing is, on one wall, on

the floor above the garage, that can be -- down, and they can get access at least to that area where there is absolutely no sighting -- siding. vice president garcia: and there was something i absolutely did not understand, and i read a few times. had i called commissioner fung, i am sure he could have explained it. on page 6, let me know when you are there, and i will -- and i do not understand what it means to say the new floor diaphragm buttressing the balloon frame wall eliminates the need for lateral bracing on the exterior

wall. therefore, it might not exceed the 50% threshold? >> no, when there is no -- nothing to tie the exterior walls together, there is a danger that a wall could collapse this way. or lean against the other side. so initially, he had suggested some bracing be put in, and then after the floor was put in, he was deciding it was no longer needed -- he decided it was no longer needed. vice president garcia: all right, thanks. >> but to the settlement question, that has to do with the building leading against the appellant -- leaning against the

appellant's building. most old buildings do not have a wall that is plumb. an accidental benefit is that we were able to straighten the wall, so it is now plumb. commissioner hwang: just going back to the earlier question from vice president garcia, getting access -- if i understood what you said, and i do not do that for a living what you do, but would it be your position or your client's position that even if there had been no roof collapse, their

n.o.v. would have been an issue? the fact that you're construction enabled them -- your construction enabled them, given they had time with the wall, it is it your position that otherwise they would have no other recourse -- was the wall, is it your position that they otherwise would have had no other recourse? without coming into your property? >> if the roof had not collapsed, and the building kept on going, they would have never realized that this was a problem, that there was a construction defect. commissioner hwang: ok. >> it is unfortunate that there was a roof collapse, but it did expos some very serious problems

about their building that they need to fix -- it did expos some -- expose some very serious problems about their building that they need to fix. taking the wall and putting it back up, demolition, because it would allow access. they are saying this is a demolition. commissioner hwang: i understand. >> my client would have a difficult time allowing access. commissioner hwang: their course of remedying their n.o.v. would not have been the same. >> they probably would never have gotten the n.o.v. commissioner fung: the other

structural upgrade, you had two permit this. the other permit was not appealed? >> it was not appealed. it was under inspection by the department of building inspection. all of the work was inspected. commissioner fung: ok. >> and also, the addendum to the site permit. commissioner fung: we know that. president goh: -- director goldstein: which of you would like to go first? mr. duffy? >> it sounds complicated, and in this case, i would say we would not be here if we did not have the roof collapse. it triggered seven complaints to dbi right up until pretty much

now, and it appeared that the project, with earlier permits issued, though they may not have been the right permits, the work was going ahead, and the work was progressing. we had a permit which was still in dbi, but our involvement really was for the foundation work. we did inspections on that, and then on march 12, we got called out by the fire department on the emergency response for the roof, which was to be demolished, actually collapsed. i am not sure how it collapsed, but it collapsed. i believe there were people working there, but no one got injured. that would have been demo-ed anyway, though that was maybe not the way for it to come down. there was a report and

correction notice issued to clear up the damaged lumber that had fallen in to secure the property walls -- had fallen and to secure the property walls. there have been complaints. i think there is one correction on what i have heard so far, it is that the building department has not issued a violation notice. it is a correction notice. there is a difference. our attention was drawn to the fact that there was something on 1150 page street, which became apparent after the collapse. i went there myself, and there was a strip of siding that is not there now. all i have to do is acknowledge that the siding is not there. i do not know why it is not there to get i do not get into that because that is not what we

do, but that building should be waterproofed with a repaired to that siding, and there seems to be animosity between the two neighbors. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. vice president garcia: mr. duffy, can you go to the illegal demolition? >> myself and a building inspector went there, and we met with mr. cassidy, in we reviewed the plans for the main permits, the 2009 permit, the permit that was under suspension -- and we reviewed the plans for the main permits. -- the main permit. every wall is still there that were shown to remain. vice president garcia: and one of the walls to remain is one that was damaged, and a prepared

to that would not be considered demolition? >> -- and a repair to that would not be considered demolition? >> advised that that wall be braced again. i am not so sure that that wall is permanently damaged. there may be damage to the exterior siding on the wall, which we see a lot of, because on the plans, they show walls to remain, but those walls are probably 100 years old. there are always problems with the siding on those. keeping walls that are 100 years old versus taking the whole building down, it is always tough on builders. how do you get proper waterproofing on a wall that has been there for 100 years that you have to keep their? we struggle with this, we really do.

a lot of times, the flashing on the roof is where you are going to get your proper sealing. it is not acknowledged in the building code because each building has to remain independent water-proofed. it is tough to do that. vice president garcia: not that it has anything to do with this case, but how do they repair this wall, legally? >> if this wall, if it needed to maybe come down and be rebuilt again, either with the existing framing or new franny, we would ask that a revision be filed -- existing framing or new framing. we have done that in the past. we will issue a correction notice. if there is a wall with inferior framing, or if there is a problem with the sighting -- siding.

it is a permit that is appealable, and then you are in the demolition. we would require a permit when the repairs are done and the wall is fixed. vice president garcia: but they could proceed without repairing the wall? >> it depends on how bad it is damaged. if we think it is damaged enough, we could ask for an engineering report. i cannot remember how badly the wall is damaged, to be honest with you, because the wall has been traced back up again, so i am not sure if it is structurally damaged -- because the wall has been brazed back up again -- braced back up again. vice president garcia: the excavation issue? >> the earlier permits, are building inspectors did.

-- our building inspectors did. new concrete was born to be put in with the rich ibarra -- was going to be put in with the rebar. if there was something close enough to property line, i would expect the building inspector would ask questions about that. in this case, i do not see where that happened. i got inspection records going back to january, i believe, is where i have them too. vice president garcia: the notice, dbi, or would that be planning? >> i do not know the answer to that. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: mr. duffy,

the foundation permit, the foundation work got a separate permit versus an addendum? excuse me. >> 1130 page street, i am not sure why they applied for that. they must have wanted to get going on some of the existing building and the new foundation. our department issued that permit. since that permit got issued, and since that day and up with1138 page -- with 1138 page street, we have changed our

policy on that. it did show a new foundation. i am not saying that was right or wrong, but we are not going to give up a permit any more. -- anymore. the structure will upgrade permit was revoked because it actually, on the plan, it showed the new addition, which, obviously, you cannot build on that type of permits, because it has to go through the main permit, which would have required 311 notification. there was work on that permit that was not properly approved by different city departments, so that is the reason it was revoked, and because of the roof that collapsed and all of the attention, when we started looking at permits, hold on a minute, this does not seem right, and when we drew their attention to that, there was no argument.

we are still waiting for the addendum to be approved on the architectural for the main permit, which is under suspension. that is still going through a review, or it was going through a review. commissioner fung: is their only one addenda? -- is there? >> i think so. the siding at 1138 pae -- page street, if they found a way to do that and then put the wall back up again -- we have been encouraging them to get along. vice president garcia: in your role as a marriage counselor? >> a lot of rowlands, believe

me. -- a lot of roles. director goldstein: thank you. sir? >> good evening. but the planning department. it strikes me that there are two issues relative to the planning code, planning department, planning commission. the first is demolition copulations, and the second are the demolition procedures and how we implement the outcomes of those tabulations. with respect to the first, with respect to the calculations themselves, my sense is, and this is listening to the appellant just now and reading the briefs earlier, we may all be actually in alignment. there is not perhaps a lot of bickering. variously, these numbers come out to be about 49.4% of the relevant building features which

are demolished. the threshold in section 317 of the planning code, what is applicable here is 50%, and that is where the line is. it is clearly articulate it. 317. obviously, note this is not there. -- obviously, this is not there. i am not surprised to see this builder getting close but not quite exceeding it. that is often the natural effect of having a limit. again, we have done the demolition to undulations. i do not believe there is a discrepancy. i do not believe -- the planning code threshold. the second part is how we take that outcome, how we take those calculations. my understanding of the appellant's