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, we would like to to find that this was an illegal demolition, to go through discretionary review, and at a minimum, spend a substantial amount of time going over the conditions that we submitted and making sure that reasonable conditions are added to this building permit in order to ensure the safety and integrity of my client's property and the tenants within the 12 units in her building. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. miss? >> if i could have the projector, please? this is the wall that is next to the light well, and you can see that right here. this is the existing wall.

when they had complained about the painting appealing -- peeling, they put in new. now, the wall they are talking about that was damaged by the collapsed roof, quote-unquote, this wall below with the exposed stud is the existing wall. this is the wall that i was talking about that they're building had a problem behind -- their building had a problem behind and should be taken down and put back up. as you can see this wall,

structurally, the wood is in very good shape. unless you have questions? commissioner fung: counselor, one of the photographs provided that was given to us tonight shows a photograph across the links of the walt. >> you are talking about the package of the neighbor? commissioner fung: yes. yes, just tonight. i am not even sure i am asking the right questions based on the fact that this is a sight permit versus a structural package, -- a site permit versus is structural -- versus a

structural permit. as to the alteration portion, the existing structural framing looks like it varies in size. >> are we talking about this photograph? commissioner fung: yes. >> ok. these are the existing, and these are the new. commissioner fung: so all of those are new at that point? >> no, not all of it, because if you look, the new is the one in front, but if you look back further, those are not new. commissioner fung: right, and i guess my point is, the members sizes vary between the two portions of the wall. >> you are correct that it looks like is, that it varies, but on

this portion, some of these look like they might not even be the same size, but these are the wall that as construction goes along, if they are the -- not the right size, they will put another next to it. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michael cassidy. i am the contractor. this area here is the area that was requested to be dropped by 1 foot in the original agreement. this is the wall that they say is totally demolished, where she says a 26 foot area, whatever -- or she says a 26 foot area. it is not demolished, as shown

in their own photographs. -- photograph. they did not cover it at all, they just left it like that, so when we stripped the sheet rock from the inside, it exposes bare citing -- it exposes their siding. it also exposed at the floor, which is approximately here, their siding missing all of the way across. commissioner fung: mr. cassidy, let me ask my question. when you opened up the building, did you find that a member sizes changed from your original exploration would have indicated? >> every set instead is the original size -- every second

stud is the original size. you can see it all of the way along. there is a new study here, but they are all new, too -- there is a new studys -- tud -- stud here. >> every second one is a different size. they have to be added on the bottom floors. in the middle floors, to buy for a cure your quotes i have seen out for the floor, -- two by four. i have seen that in the floor. it has to be beefed up to come to code. did you are not allowed to demolish donthem.

>> back to the out last point, you have to assist with something? >> sometimes they would add additional structural members, depending on what the engineer asks for. >> i thing is submitted. >> unless their is department will rebuttal. anything else? then yes, it is submitted. >> when i first read this package, it was interesting, because i thought i was looking

at an actual and building permit, and as i went back again, it is basically a site permit. if you look good about in that light, the argument of suppliers. -- if you look at it in that light, the argument applies periods -- applies. it would not have necessarily been part of the permit. the water intrusion issue is not part of the permit. if their arguments over about, they are going to spend a

fortune, and it is going to be difficult to tell where the water came from. the basic side to permit -- site permit allows a certain use and design, and that is not being appealed. it is not part of the appellants appeal. this is not a discretionary review hearing, so the question is whether those issues that are going to be adjudicated in some civil venue, not here.

i think a permit in terms of what it normally contributes zero to what has been approved is still violenalid. >> i understand why an appellant would consider the percentages submitted as white suspect, but who -- submitted was suspect your your -- as suspect. however, despite the information about the calculation, that was done by planning. i feel more persuaded of everything done by planning is

acceptable. >> i want to take a different tactic and follow up on the comments of the property may be on sound. -- unsound. there's another process for review, and i do not know if there is a process to take it to a further staff review, but i i think with the safety concerns raised by the appellant, it should be addressed under that mechanism is possible to regard -- if possible. >> if it turns out to be on >> if it turns out to be on sound -- unsound, but does not