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 second choice preference is that this return to the planning commission for a

discretionary review, presumably on some aspect, which she argues is the demolition, but to get there, we have to again apply the planning code, section 317, to the current situation. while i have not seen the plans or been to the site myself, in light of the recent rout collapsed and based on what the appellant has indicated -- the recent rise collapse, and based on what the appellant has indicated -- the recent roof collapse, it could be unsound. a planning review is not needed. even if that is not the case, and, again, it has been since the onset of section 317, the subject matter of the planning committee is not clear to me, given that the project is, as i understand it, the same now as

it has been throughout the process. so, commissioners, just to sum that up, we have already reviewed the proposal with respect to the demolition criteria. we found it not to be a demolition, and if we were to review it again today, following the collapse of the roof, as an actual demolition, which, again, it has been suggested by the appellant that that is the case, again, no discretionary review would be required. i hope that is not too much planning jargon. i am, of course, here to answer your questions. commissioner fung: if it is found unsound, the entire building could be demolished. commissioner peterson: when you said administrative process, what did you mean by that?

>> section 317. demolition generally requires a public hearing with either public use or discretionary review, and there are some exceptions. the primary exception is for unsound buildings that are proposed to be removed and for housing that is unaffordable, that exceeds a certain sales price. in those two cases, presented with evidence that backs that up, there is a staff level approval. it does not exempt it from other things, but there is no hearings at the planning commission. commissioner peterson: the way which to determine and calculate the demolition, is that public -- the way which you determine it? >> it is in the planning code. commissioner peterson: no, the way in which you did it for this case, this project.

vice president garcia: the actual numbers. commissioner peterson: yes, and how you came to 49.4. >> the numbers were in part provided on the application, both leading what was written on the application by the architect and having our staff take a scale and do the math -- both looking at what was written on the application by the architect and having our staff take a scale and do the math. commissioner peterson: if they want to recalculate it, they would go back to the code and recalculate it, but have you gone through the process, where has that been asked of you? >> it has not -- or, has that been asked of you? >> it has not. commissioner peterson: conflict, i thought that is what this was about. >> i do not believe that anyone

is alleging that the actual numbers exceed 50%. yet my understanding, and i would defer to the appellant is my understanding is correct, that would be a demolition. commissioner peterson: ok, i see. on rebuttal. commissioner fung: i already asked my, yes. -- ask my, yes. -- asked mine, yes. director goldstein: any public comment? hold on a second. vice president garcia: how many people? we are talking about three or four people totally? i am going to cut you to two to three minutes, and there are compelling reasons why we want to get mr. duffy out of your

tonight, so if you go ahead and please be brief. director goldstein: please give a card to the clerk if you are willing after you are done speaking. >> i would like to submit this to the record. if i could have the overhead, please? thank you. vice president garcia: ddo a 1. >> i have installed these. the dimension is 8 feet long and

8 feet wide. it is 7 feet to the bottom of the concrete. it is away from the adjacent property. with the structure report, it has compacted down in sand and barack, so it does not pose a threat. -- in sand and bedrock. you have got to remove the roof. downstairs and up. just to clarify for you guys. depending the work that was starting, there was a complaint issued. it opened onto a driveway. i want to point out to, and i am sure you guys have the plant there, this point right here, which is circles, -- i am sure you guys have the plan there,

this point right here, which is sold -- circled. if you look at the top, that is about one eighth of 1 inch. this did not move the building. so thank you, commissioners. vice president garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, and with the residential builders association. a quick comment -- i am with the residential builders association. obviously, the parties have been hindered in respect to the roof. if there is any good news, there is insurance companies involved, and as we know, when they get involved, they do their own thing and work it out, and there

will be a resolution. they will do some water damage control and fix what needs to be fixed. insurance companies are involved here, and that will be resolved, like they always do. thank you. director goldstein: next speaker please. >> commissioners, good evening. john o'connor. a couple of things, about the d.r. on this project. the project sponsor worked and added to the project. recommending approval of the project as it was. also, the project sponsor paid $7.5000 to the appellant. if i could address the water intrusion issue -- the project

sponsor paid $7,500 to the appellant. they came on to the appellant's building and said of the new wall over it. -- set up the new wall over it. it is a construction defects. -- defect. so at this stage the roof collapsed, the water membrane came off between the two buildings, and the water got between the buildings, and that is when the problem showed up. it would have showed up every way -- showed up anyway because the membrane -- both parties agree to water-proofed between the two buildings when the building at 1138 page street is complete.

that will resolve that issue. i would say this. as far as the roof collapsing, it is an insurance issue. they are working to resolve this, and that will get solved as it goes along, so i think the key here is that all of the proper permits are in place tonight, and i would ask you to uphold the permits of the construction could be complete, and agree to water-proofed between the buildings, and insurance will resolve the other issues -- and agreed to water- proofe between the buildings -- and agree. director goldstein: next speaker. >> the builders association. i would like to summarize. unless a demolition has occurred -- that was both signed

off on the neighbor, the council, and approved by the department. less demolition has occurred and what was approved. the roof was always slated to be part of that demolition. the second point, the appellant and council was very familiar with the drawings. there was a long negotiation before the d.r. was withdrawn. there were complaints filed by the neighbor, by the appellant, when the work began. she had a problem with the swinging gate. they knew the work had begun. a group helps shepard builders through this confusing process. -- helps shepard -- helps guide builders care this confusing process. there was a request for $7,500.

it did not smell right, but the deal got done. the agreement was drawn up by counsel, and if you look at the last paragraph of that agreement, it states that the appellant gives up its right to appeal the project unless there is a design modification that adversely affects the adjacent owners or renters. this is the very projects that they agreed to. there has not been any change. yet they supposedly gave up that agreement. when we give advice to these smaller builders that cannot always have attorneys, what am i to tell them about a binding agreement between the neighbor and the builder? what am i to tell them if that neighbor has counseled that drew up the agreement and is now not living up to the agreement. what am i to tell them if that neighbor has council -- counsel?

director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> my concern is about the neighborhood. director goldstein: excuse me, ma'am. would you care to state your name? >> many letters were stents -- sent to the board. we have the consent already. the neighbors that live on these streets -- i have seen the development of this building on page, and we have been very, very upset for our future. we already have this other tall building next to the construction right now. this building is on page story. it is right above my garden. we live in a situation that is

beautiful, full of trees, full of bush's, and also, we have this -- full of bushes. this is at the edge of our nature. we are concerned about the following point. neighborhood homes. this architectural style is totally different. this is a beautiful neighborhood. i do not understand how they can approve something that does not go with us that building and architecture. -- with aesthetic building and architecture. this is very bad for all of us because we have children, grandchildren. they play there. we have nature.

it is a beautiful right now. privacy. already -- [bell] excuse me, but i want to say that the letters i have said to the board should be taken into consideration. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. is there any other further public comment? we will start with rebuttal. three minutes. >> thank you. first of all, to the water damage that is on my client's wall, our understanding is that when the roof collapsed, the siding came off of the wall due to water damage.

the past portends the future. we are concerned about the safety and structural safety. the wall in question sits on top of the wall that goes down and holds up the light well, the south light well, on my client's property, with an additional 40 feet being built on to the oswalt. it will be heavier and create great damage on top of my clients wall. as to the civil code 832, you have heard from people but the property owner did not think that the excavation was going to affect my client's property. civil code 832 is very clear, that any owner of land intending to excavate shall give reasonable notice stating the death and when the excavating will begin. the fact that my client may have known that there was a swinging gate is a far cry from knowing that excavation is about to start with in the area. those are two very different

things. on demolition, the difference between the plans which were approved, which were different from the plans we signed off on last year, different in terms of the amount of demolition, the difference in those plans and what would qualify as demolition is 29 square feet of wall. now, when the roof collapsed, 29 square feet of wall was impacted, making this as a demolition which should be treated as such. if this building is unsound and should be demolished, then the whole thing should be demolished. as to the agreement that was alluded to, actually in your record, yes, we did make an agreement prior property owner. that did not run with of land. it did not go to this property owner. it was to cover a portion of my client's attorney fees and having to devote more attention to this matter. so, again,