except that there seems to be a section on the ground floor, i do not have the photo, that is still in tact, about one-quarter of the front of the ground floor. i do not plan -- know if they do plan on taking that down. i want to be assured they will do it properly. that is something that can be proactively addressed. >> there is also a rebuttals for the permit holder. >> a couple of things i want to mention, the owner does not re hab houses.

he is not a professional. he does not do that work himself. he does not have that knowledge, to my frustrations sometimes. the second issue regarding the bay window, we went to the planning department and had discussions. it was mentioned that it cannot be determined from where he is standing. i am happy to review those discussions we had that showed the bay window was within the requirements of the planning cut. both in projection and wit. with regard to the coordination and the drawings, there was a mis coordination issue that was raised. all of the work is in the permit set. there was a lack of coordination between architecture and structural. that work was performed according to the drawings. my intention was we could go

back down and review all of those issues and make sure that whatever formal constraints that are required, we would make sure we were within those. i think that is it. oh, we also, we terminated the contract with the contractor and hired somebody that is certified in the handling of asbestos for any that was remaining tumor removed. there is still some on the building. i do not think any more will be required. however, we have somebody that is licensed to handle that now. >> is it your intention to address concerns regarding lead? >> absolutely. however that would be required to be handled. if the netting is not sealed to everyone's satisfaction, it seems like a minor issue.

>> i would suggest ongoing conversations with your neighbors as this process goes forward. the neighbors of the building. >> absolutely. >> there are a couple of things. one is that it will have to resubmit additional permits. let me finish. you will see where and going with this. i am asking questions. if that is the case, what would you bring up in terms of how you would deal with some of the issues brought up by your neighbors? >> as far as the materials, we

have somebody who can do that. as far as the permit iraq -- modifications, we need to discuss adjustments to the bay window or two, i am not sure. i think most of it is within code requirements, including the bay window. we would be happy to have a conversation with them if they have, if that is affecting them in some way. i am not sure how it could be. i think it is more of a technicality -- technicality that is being used as leverage. we would be happy to have that conversation. >> mr. sanchez?

>> as you heard, the project's sponsor did have conversations with the department in regards to the bay window. at this time, i do not see how it would be code complaint. perhaps if the board would entertain it, thinking about this, continuing the item, i could confer with staff and see if that is the case, if we made a determination that it was compliant. i am happy to admit i may be wrong but i would like to confer with staff. to see what their reasoning was in terms of compliance with the bay window. i wanted to offer that.

>> i would like to clarify something on the asbestos. chapter 34 of the building code addresses asbestos. it is mostly for multi unit building and protecting tenants, which i think has been mentioned before. in this type of building, it would be quality management. on the lead issue, if we are going to continue, i would happy to have someone from the department make the current owner to make sure they are taking the proper measures for a lead abatement. there are other requirements besides the netting. even at that, i would like to have an inspector. >> the matter is submitted. >> before we start, i am

confused. if we were to continue it, would it have to be corrected or where there be a new permit applied for? >> that was on this permit, they could revise the design to have it to reflect the previous one. that would be the clearest solution. then there would be no notification issued. >> we continue its, i am trying to be clear, some of these things that are perhaps in error could be corrected. they are here in order to solve problems and make sure that their safety concerns are addressed. i guess we could do all that and

someone would have to go out and determine what this house -- said that is on the house. the bay window is out of compliance. >> you are allowed to 90 feet. then again, i think be required front setback is further. i think the front portion is probably a noncompliant structure. that is what it appears from the plans. we can get a determination on that. >> an alternative for the permit holder would be to request of variants? >> yes. -- a variance? >> yes. >> there is another alternative, that we continue its, they pose changes, and we

cannot adopt those changes and return and have them to enter specific discussions with their neighbors on good neighbor policies and how to handle some of the shielding and things related to cleanup. i think the inspectors can describe to him. that would be another option. >> another option is revocation of the permit if it was issued in error. >> or grant the appeal but can we delegate to dbi?

>> we cannot remaned back to the apartment. the city attorney says that. >> you can make modifications to say -- >> why don't we wait until it is submitted? >> it has been. >> the bay window must be compliant. the permit holder must meet withdbi to develop a plan. there is a penalty imposed for the work that is done. >> you do not have the authority to impose a penalty but you could amend the dimensions of the window if mr. sanchez gave instructions on what they need to be. you'd also have to amend the shed roof. >> and do we have to be specific? >> it is difficult for the board

to enforce it is not specific. >> the department has preferred they make specific recommendations otherwise we get into vagueness. they may say set it back in the question later is, how much? we definitely prefer to have specific. another thing was that the structural drawings do not match up with the architectural drawings. this section shows a higher roofline or ceiling inside the building. that is not actually how it is built. clearing that up, making everything could complaint would be something this board could do. >> we could accept that it does not have to be a shed wall.

in return, i would want them to be able to alleviate the concerns of their neighbors. >> i agree with that. >> that is what i was saying earlier. i hear district -- three different things so far. >> this seems like revocation does not serve the neighbors because then they are left with a partially completed project. i am sure they do not want that. >> it does not serve the project sponsor to be waiting to have to go through the process again. whereas we -- if we continue it, and discussions can take place with the neighbors and i am sure you now want to communicate as

thoroughly as you possibly can with them, they have raised real concerns and they have to be addressed. it gives you time to confer with planning to go out and confer as to what has to be done after they have sent inspectors out to make a determination to what the setback is. i think you have pursued -- received the news on the slope. commissioner fung says we can take care of that here. the bay window would have to be redesigned. unless there is other comment, i would move that we continue this. is anyone opposed it? >> to you want to specify what she wanted to see -- what you

want to see? >> i wanted to be code compliance -- i want it to be code compliant. and how thoughtful they were of their concerns. >> president garcia, when would you like to have this return to? president garcia: whenever it's convenient for the parties and the board. >> i do not know how much time they expect they will need. president garcia: did you want us to reconvene tomorrow? >> i would not recommend our meeting next week because of the heavy agenda. we could have it on the 25th although commissioner fung will

not be here. president garcia: can they do what they need to do in that period of time? unless somebody wants to disagree with that to date. -- that date. you cannot speak from the audience. >> you do not have to come back if you arrive at a agreeable relationship with your neighbors in terms of what is going to occur. through the construction, through dealing with any other materials that may be hazardous dealing with debris, whatever. if you arrive at a reasonable rent -- relationship with the permit holders, you do not have to come back. >> i would love to arrive at a reasonable relationship.

>> you could. you have leverage to talk to the homeowner a contractor, figure out a solution. if you find one, with strong european. >> we will set a date and discuss. we would like commission fung to be here, though. >> so would we. >> year of the west would be may 9. -- the earliest would be made ninth. >> they can withdraw the appeal prior to that. >> it we are short cutting them having to apply, we need to condition the permit with additional drawings. >> the fastest way for the permit holder to get started is to have the board modify the

permit. that is faster than applying for a new permit or a revision permits. >> or go through 311. >> if they were modifying the permit to be code compliance, like the window, that is not a week-long process. you could do that over the counter. >> we need to address it at the board. >> not necessarily. >> the permit is suspended. no modifications can be made right now. >> you do not like these people and do not want them back? >> i have confidence we have given direction for them to make the neighbors happy. >> we are giving them a break in terms of reducing the amount of

process they have to do. the neighbors do not have to come back because they know that their problems will be addressed, and they know that planning is motivated and intends to make sure that the permit holder is motivated to be in compliance with codes relating to his project. >> i get it. i want to shorten the process. >> we could save report -- say revoke or get 311 for the roof. >> i am not trying to defend the actions of the permit holder. i'm trying to get into a solution -- to get them to a solution.

>> with everyone's indulgence, i think we are happy to lower the roof to the requirement and i think we are happy to cut the bay window back by a couple of feet. we hired this other contractor. no, it doesn't work? >> you need to meet with the neighbors. find out what that issues are and how you are going to address them. it obviously was not enough. >> that is fine. we can meet with them. if you want to provide specific parameters and they are in agreement, we are willing to do that. >> there is also the issue of the ceiling height that has to be reconciled with the drawings. you have to come back. >> so we are coming back?

>> we still have to take a look at the changes that have been made. >> one option is to withdraw the appeal and they will make sure that the plans and the permits are compliant with of a coat. another option is that you revise -- with the code. another option is this board can adopt that as an amendment to the existing permit. that is another option. i believe the motion is to continue the item to allow you the opportunity to meet with your neighbors to discuss how you are going to address their concerns and allow you the opportunity to work with planning to come up with some revisions to the existing permit that would make them code compliant. >> all that could be short

circuit if an appeal with -- is withdrawn. >> sign understand. -- i understand. we talked to the neighbors and have an meeting to come back here. >> one more thing to be clear, if you are going to come back, it would be who you to submit the materials you want the board to adopt -- behoove you to submit the materials you want the board to adopt. president garcia is happy to have that. >> april 25 is not going to work for the three of us. can we do may 9? >> sure. i was worried about if that

works for the permit holder. this could all be withdrawn in the meantime if all of the things that have been talked about endlessly have been taking care of. may 9. >> i want to say that is a gift , an opportunity to come to as short as possible resolution of this issue. >> at the hearing is on may 9, may 3 is the date for submission. >> we have a motion from president garcia to continue this matter to me nine. the public hearing has been held to allow time to review the plan and allow the permit holder to revise his plan and additional

materials. commissioner fung: yes. commissioner hwang: yes. commissioner hillis: yes. commissioner hurtado: yes. >> this matters continue to may 9. >> there is no further business.