building. what happened on that property is extremely important to my client's tenants and well-being and safety. indeed, all of 1140 page property adjoins the wall of my client cost wall. -- my clinet's wall. we filed for d.r., had productive discussions with the property owner, they made concessions, and we withdrew the d.r. subsequent to that, a new owner took over 1140 page and since then a number of issues have arisen. the permitee apparently started work without the proper permits, and that has been acknowledged by the letter submitted by ellis barkley. under some permits having to do with structural and foundation work, preparatory to extending this building, the neighboring

owner did a substantial amount of work that was not allowed, and in addition, on march 12, the roof of that property collapsed. it was a saturday. a lot of my client's tenants were home. they were startled, scared, and debris fell into the light wells on my client's property, and some of the wall of my client's property was affected and harmed. as a result, a notice of violation had been issued to my client to secure a building permit to come in and fix for wall, and she cannot even get to that wall because of the adjacent wall on 1140 page. i think it might be helpful to show you -- commissioner hwang: sorry, could

you say that again? your client issued a n.o.v., but cannot get to it? >> she is obligated to pull the building permit to fix her wall. she would love to fix her wall. she connected to her wall because the wall of the adjacent property -- she cannot get to the wall because the wall of the jessup property is in the way. we believe that what is about to crumble and fall down. we believe the entire building should be demolished, and it should be acknowledged at this point that the project constitutes the demolition of the original building and should proceed through the process as an approved demolition and not as an alteration. commissioner hwang: you are selling the product that has been built should be demolished? >> no, the existing structure. i am sorry. just to show some photographs. ok.

this is a photograph of the debris that collapsed when the roof collapsed on march 12. this is another photograph of the same event. and just a little before and after, this is looking for my client's properly to 1140 page, the wall that collapsed. and this is before it collapsed. after the roof caved in, this is the wall. as is this. the import to that is multifold. at first, when this renovation extension was proposed on 1140 page, it was proposed as not to demolition but simply a rehab.

at that point, it was proposed to be 48.6% demolition of the elements of the building, with 50% being the threshold for demolition. we were skeptical. however, those were the calculations. and it was approved with 48.6% demolition. subsequently, after the plans were approved, new plans were submitted with a 49.4% demolition of the exterior elements of the building. again, somewhat suspect, 49.4%. we believe, indeed, they should be classified as a demolition and should go through mandatory discretionary review. furthermore, when the roof collapsed, clearly this will now has been effectively demolished, it needs to be demolished. the building department has acknowledged that the wall is sagging towards my client's

property. this is a grave safety and property and personal danger issue. so the entire building needs to be removed. now, under building code section 103-a-3, a demolition without a building permit means that if the demolition occurs without the demolition permit, which occurred here, and it does not matter whether it is voluntary or involuntary -- that is not specified in the code -- that means there could be no permit to enlarge the building for five years. so we urge you to dictate that this building should be demolished appropriately and that no further building permit should be issued, other than to have the same number of units that were previously there, in accordance with the building code, for five years. another issue that we have is the brief acknowledges that

there was no not notice given to us as required under the civil code for excavation. that knowledge is on page 8, first of all, that the appellant, my client, was told the foundation would be no deeper than my client's foundation, and specifies the so the civil code has been violated. we urge you to force the building to be demolished and no permits issued for five years. vice president garcia: your time is up, but i am going to ask you a question because i think this is a complicated issue. >> id is. we believe notice has not properly been given. there are safety concerns here,

and you should find that the building should be demolished, in fact has been demolished, and that no building permit should be issued for five years in accordance with the building code. short of that, the building now qualifies as a demolition, given that more than 50% of the vertical elements will be removed, and it should start over with mandatory discretionary review. if you are inclined to hold it as it exists, a number of conditions we request should be added that we feel are imperative to protect the safety of our client's property and tenants. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: the basis for the original agreement with the owner and your client, so your client did not do that -- i believe it was a sight permit.

whether it was or not does not matter. has it remained the same through the site permit? because you have not mentioned that in your brief or in your oral presentation that that is an issue. >> that is correct. we are not contesting the design of the building. clearly, how far back it is from my client's building, the highest, that type of thing, some things we do not understand -- the height, that type of stain. that is the only thing we have identified that is different. president goh: -- director goldstein: thank you.

miss? >> thank you. i would like to make a correction in my brief. the date should have been submitted on january 4, 2011, not january 20, 2010, and the application number should be -- i need to quit using the copy function on my computer. basically, this case is really very simple. there has been 3 permits that have been issued to the permit d. -- to the permitee.

there is a foundation upgrade permit that was submitted on december 9, 2010, and that was also issued on the same day. then, the third permit is a structural upgrade permit, which was submitted on january 4, 2011, and that was issued sometime in february. work began under these issued foundation upgrade permits and the structural upgrade permits. as i stated in my brief, unfortunately, those permits that were submitted did not correctly identify the scope of work of what is the existing building and what was the new construction that should have been covered under the site permit, and that portion of the work should not have been approved by the department of building inspection until after the site permit was issued, so

the work was done under issued permits, but i would knowledge, and i acknowledge, that they were not lawfully done. subsequent to the collapse of the risks -- roof, the department actually revoke the structural upgrade permit, has find the applicant, -- has fined the applicant, the permitee, and the fine has been paid. this follows from that. all of the damages and the rest of it. it is the permitee's 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 appea