that this was not work that should be happening? how was it that they ultimately -- >> there were two complaints filed. the permit was applied for an february 3. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> i am the architect. i have some extensive background and the project. i will be representing the property owner. on the three points, there were a couple of timeline the things that happened. i would like to go through the

timeline a little bit so i can try to clarify as to what happened. the permit for the kitchen and bath remodel was issued on 12/1. that was labeled a kitchen and bath remodel, but if you look at the plants, which i can set down here, this is from that approved it said. you can see that the lines -- dashed lines represent the demolition. >> this is first floor? >> that floor is the ground floor. sorry. there is the second floor. that is also included.

the demolition was part of that initial permanent. it was only for the interior, that is correct. we were going through an environmental assessment as to whether the property was an historic assets. what you can see is we began construction on phase one on 12/2. we were awaiting the response for the categorical exemption. on the 20th, the exemption was complete and we understood that it was not historical. it allowed us to go forward with the balance of the work we had hoped to do. the contractor did receive -- and exceed the scope. we are not contesting that. they had some work that was tied to interior work and they jumped the gun. it is the dates that are -- you

can see the historic classification was on the 20th. the contractor exceeded the scope on the 23rd. on the 25th, the complaint was filed. we completed the drawings in about five days. on the 26, we were down for intake. we were not granted permits until the second. we were already -- it was not like there was any intention to do work without a permit. we were in the process of retaining a permit. -- obtaining a permit. the permit was issued, after that point, the complaints kept rolling in th. all the work being done now, the bay window, everything is in that current permit. i can go through those items in

detail if you would like. with respect to the final item about removal of material, it was a licensed contractor. it was our understanding that everything was being done per standard. causes the contractor's responsibility when the issue was raised, we started to question the contractors competence and went out and tested the material. it was a very low content of asbestos. it was not airborne. we have now removed that contractor. we sat down with the neighbors, we explain that to them, we told them we would hire a new contractor. that contractor -- we could all sit down again, what ever we needed to do to make sure

everything was done right. >> i have a question. did you do any testing for lead? >> not to my knowledge. >> ok. that was not -- the asbestos testing was not our responsibility. it was the contractors responsibility to handle the portion. >> there is no lead present? >> to my knowledge. >> did you go through the 311 process? >> no, we did not. we did contact the neighbors out of respect, but we are not required to. the deck was within the parameters.

>> ok. >> when did you accede -- you exceeded the scope of the original permit. that is when you found out? >> that is when i found out. i saw that a beam -- that is what we started saying, we have to finish this up. we went down for the permit. alarm bells were going off. at that point, even if they stopped, it was already there. >> do you have any sense of the chronology of the time when you were reaching out to neighbors? >> the neighborhood meeting that

we had, we had several back and forth e-mails to run the end of february. the actual meeting, it was at the end of february, the first day of march. >> after work was done? after complaints had been filed? >> right around that time. >> that was the first time you met with neighbors? when was the first time he met with neighbors? >> i am the homeowner. whenever i was contacted, we immediately called directly to them. the complaints were going to the city. the minute we realized something was wrong, we halted, tried to correct it, and i reached out. i have sent 15 e-mails to them, called several times.

it has not been adversarial from our perspective. we have been trying to reach out. we recognized mistakes were made and tried to correct them. to answer your question, contact was made immediately after they reached out to us. >> for a complaint? >> yes. immediately. we immediately went to the city to address it because we were concerned. in two days -- i was in south america. we found that about it, we immediately went to the city. it was in good faith. it was an accident. we pulled all the proper permits. >> ok. >> whoever wants to go first.

>> thank you. we received the plans today. unfortunately, i did note to issues. in relation to the section 311 notification. it does appear that the deck notice. it does not trigger a fire wall. >> does not exceed 10 feet? what is the other one? >> the firewall. there is no fire wall that is higher than 10 feet. that does appear to be code compliant. the shed roof they had at the back. it was demolished and rebuilt.

it was built to the maximum. they are not subject to section 311 notification, but the change in the anklgle would technically trigger the 311 notice. the bay window does not comply with planning code requirements. it is a very large bay window. it seems to exceed the planning code requirements. it is also difficult to discern between the two sets of plans. where the front property line is. it appears the building may have a setback, but the plans did not show a setback. the adjacent building has a setback. when you have a corner property, you take the average of the one adjacent property and you cut it in half to calculate the front setback. it is probably not complain

because of the one adjacent property. -- non-complying because of the one adjacent property. even if it was at the same level, the width of the bay window is larger than what is allowed in the planning code. it does appear that the plans and permits were issued in error. >> mr. sanchez, i will withdraw that question. >> before you go away, as we stand right now, is it safe to say the only problem we need to deal with going forward would be the bay windows? all asbestos materials have already been removed. >> the day when those are the primary cause of concern for our

department. -- the bay windows are the primary cause of concern for our department. it would technically require an neighborhood notification because it does increase the envelope of the building. if they would have replaced it as it was, that would have been exempted from the requirements of section 311. >> thank you. >> had the permit holder done both phases in one, had been submitted drawings and all of that -- i am understanding what you are saying about the bay window on its own. had they been consolidated come up with that have required a neighborhood noticed?

>> the second permit itself has the issues. >> planning reviewed it. they did not require the notice in error? >> that is correct. it appears that we approved it in error with regards to the neighborhood notification. the bigger concern is the size of the bay window. they did not appear to comply with planning code requirements. >> it would not be a 311 notice. >> it would have required a variance. >> those were with those same -- those plans were in hand? >> it was done by one of our preservation specialist. founded it was not a resource and there was no further work done on it. it did not require any additional environmental review.

the plans for this addition, there were held by staff over the counter. it was an over-the-counter art review. staff did consult to make sure to make clear that the environmental review had been completed. >> how pour off is the bay window from being compliant? >> it is difficult to tell based on the plants. if the building wall is at the front property line, and the adjacent building is set back, they could not do any expansion of the previous day window. -- bay window. the entire addition would be in the required front setback. >> any more questions? >> i have one more. the abatement of lead and the

addressing of the asbestos, those are not within your jurisdiction? >> that is correct. >> i am not confused. i thought you said you did not know how far back to the building next door was. how can we know that the bay window is exceeding what should be allowed for setback? >> there are two issues. the witdth does not comply. can even have a bay window that is expanded from what was their previously? we need to determine whether front setback, based upon the plants, it appears they could nt have any additional bay window at all. >> even if it were to go back to what the old bay window was, it would not matter. it would still be allowed to redo what had been there. >> at this point, we would allow

them to go back and restore the previous a window given the facts of this case. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. as you have heard, the timeline back in november 2011 for the interior. that work obviously started. on the 20th of january, 2012, we received a complaint acceding scope of the permit. their first of january, notice of violation issued. -- 31st of january, notice of violation issued.

we stopped all the work that had been exceeded under the original prints -- original kermit and ask them to obtain a building permit to show the full scope of work. that is pretty standard procedure. in between the complaint been filed and the notice of violation issued, they began the process of applying for that proper permits. they did get a permit showing the bay window and the exterior work than not been on the original permit. i would have concerns about the second permit. i have seen some demolition in the photographs. new framing. structural plans and architectural plans, a little bit of a difference. i spoke to the architect about but already this evening. i'm available for any questions if you have them. i know lead

has been mentioned. >> based on what you have heard from the zoning administrator and what you have heard in terms of testimony, the permit holder has to do certain things to rectify the record and in terms of what their scope is. what did they have to do? >> now or once we issued the notice of violation? i think there is a revised permit required to show the full extent of the work and probably to go through whatever planning department requirements are required for the exterior work. we definitely need something to clarify exactly what they have done. i am not sure the second comment that properly.

-- permanent did that properly. i think there are some issues that need to be addressed. >> one interpretation would be that whatever problems existed, they will not be solved here tonight. >> know. they have agreed on that with me. my first action would be to go out there and figure out what is going on and to make sure that everything being done is covered under the scope of the permits. when i looked at the brief, i saw photographs of newly framed exterior walls. those walls are showing as existing. there are a lot of new windows. maybe they decided to take the whole ball down. that is fine, but you have to get total -- you have to get approval for that. it is a fair size exterior work.

i can see why the neighbors were upset. a lot of people have to take months to get through this process. this one seemed to go fairly quickly. >> could you address the concerns raised relating to the asbestos and lead abatement? >> the lead, i saw the netting. i am not sure about the notification. i know our code has some stuff on that. >> blood testing is required? >> and not -- lead testing is required? >> not all the time. knowing they are dealing with it and taking the measures. it is only if they do not take the measures that we come down hard on them. we even go out and educate them on that before we issue any signs on that. the asbestos complains that we did, we do refer them to air quality management. they have people in the field as

well. i did see the report. i think it is mostly a shingles that they were taking down. that happened a lot. it means that they're pretty hard. the particles are not as dangerous. >> it is problematic if they go to the ground and break. all of this is water under the bridge or is there more work to be done? i want to be clear that all of the asbestos worked has been done already. >> it appears it has been performed and we probably missed a that a month or six weeks ago. i see they got the testing but it is probably water under the bridge. >> what about that, i am just

curious about the demolition, what are the requirements? is there a constraint or rule that you cannot throw debris on the ground up your backyard? >> you have to keep your site clean and you have to be safety conscious. our code addresses that. our inspectors go out and have a stern word at the contractor's it we see a messy job site. we do not like a messy job site. it is never a good thing. a job site must be kept clean. >> thank you. >> if you get a permit for removal of asbestos shings,

-- shingles, to you have to show you have a contractor or you have to take specific measures? >> we have a chapter, 34, that addresses that. there is a section about asbestos removal and notification. it is more a bay area quality management. there is a number you have to get. i am not sure if that would have been required. there is a section in the code that addresses and asbestos removal. there are exceptions of course. we cannot have everybody come in if somebody is taking down a shingles' at a wall. as contractors, they should be aware of the dangers and hazards of working with asbestos.

>> if there is a complaint and somebody exceeds the scope of the works, what happens besides you stopping to work and requiring a permit? are there penalties? >> in this case, the time line is sometimes what gets us. we got this complaint on january 25, 2012. the case was received. they applied for a permit on january 26 that said, we should be stopped work order. they had to apply on the 26 of january. they had already applied on the 26 but we did -- we did give them a penalty on the notice of violation but it never got added on. that is something i have spoken to them about as well. i think there is a penalty on this.

they admitted they had admitted the scope of the permit. the amount it would request would be two times on $80,000 worth of work. we like to get our penalties for people that exceed the scope of the permit because it is not fair for other people who take their time. >> what about penalties for asbestos? >> bay area air quality management. and the health department as well. sometimes the health department. >> thank you. is there any public comment? step forward, please. president garcia? >> i want to make a quick comment. i live next door on the other

side of laurie. i want to make a quick comment because there is definitely a pattern of trying to ask the right questions and looking for answers and being told wanting and then something else happens. it happens many times where we did not think it had asbestos in eight. -- in it. he professionally upgrades older houses and it is not taking a trained eye to look at this particular house that was worked on and think there is a high probability these tiles have asbestos in them. we have asked all time for him to actually -- the homeowner,

and thank you. we asked neil to test the tiles and he said the contractor said there is no less pestis in the of the tiles. that is the main area of concern was, we really think you should be tested. he did detest them after we finally sat down and met with him. we appreciate him running those tests. we threaten to do our own tests and he ended up giving those, providing that to us. there has been some dialogue. we did not know what to the right answer was. we really wanted to flag this because something did not smell right. things were not adding up. we attempted to reach out and try to find a solution and really ask him, we do not know what to do but help us get to a

resolution. in any event, i wanted to point out the bay window is really a room. it is not a window, the way he designed it. we focused on that issue. in the back debt is a landing for a staircase. -- the back deck is a landing for a staircase. >> i think your time is up. >> i would like to see that picture. >> this is interesting because as neighbors we are excited about the housing redevelopment -- redeveloped. you look at this area and there is no tree here. this illustrates this window. this is a 15 foot, it is really a room that overhangs the sidewalk by almost 3 feet. we are excited about the project

but some missteps, there were some missteps along the way. >> is there any other public comment? >> hello i am linda. i work for the owner in the beginning of the project to go through the planning department because the first design of this -- >> i am sorry. if you are an employee. public comment is made for people who are not affiliated with any of the parties. if you are a paid consultant, you need to speak under the time allotted. is there any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal and start with the pellets. do you have anything else to add? you have three minutes. >> i did not realize i had a rebuttal. i do not