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 a

it is the permitee's

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

it says the permitee or designee shall at his own cost and expense, protech, preserve, maintain, repair and keep in good order these schools. this is a local education agency, not the department of defense. that shouldn't be the responsibility of the department of defense and we're bleeding off $250 million. i'm sure the gentleman will stand up an say, this is needed. this isn't going to be a continual thing. we've just got to bring these schools up to repair. they'll say that the department of defense has said that these schools are in disrepair. they are. nobody is questioning that. the question is, where should this money come from? and if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we ought to be cutting more defense funding. this funding, there's a problem, it should go through the local -- i'm sorry, the local education agencies or convince the federal department of education through impact aid to send money to these schools. but not the department of defense. that has been the practice, unfortunate, around here for quite a while now. we say, all right, what accou