the community deserves a resolution of this. perhaps, i am being optimistic, this board can come to a resolution. we will attempt it. we have attempted many difficult issues in the past. i would support a rehearing. >> it looks as though there are no other comments. i hope i did not cause someone who had come here to testify not testimony -- not to testify. it seems like most people in the room are going to get what they wanted. i hope everyone is satisfied carry [applause] -- i hope everyone is satisfied. [applause] thank you for entertaining us

tonight. that was an interesting ping- pong game. i move that we grant aid -- grant a rehearing. the new facts have to do with the 2002 certificates of use. >> we would need a hearing date. i would recommend something in it didn't so the parties have time to prepare their briefs -- something in june so the parties have time to prepare their briefs and have everyone in attendance. >> it looks as though they might be conferring on a date. >> what are the dates? >> june 13 and 20. those are the two board meetings in june. >> 20 would be better. >> up to you. >> i am sorry, that is not a

good day for me. >> we would not have a full cadre of board members on the 20th. >> the 13th does not work for one of the? >> [inaudible] >> and the board is meeting on july 11 and july 25. >> you may have a new board by then. [laughter] there are three members that go up for reappointment or substitution. >> the people -- >> i might be able to make the june 20. it depends when i am back in town. maybe i can try. i will prioritize the list. >> ok. >> if we find out that we have to reschedule, someone will be in touch with you all for

alternate dates. maybe you could tomorrow send in those states anyway as the contingency. >> [inaudible] >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> we would like to have a full panel of five members to hear the matter. we want to schedule on a day when everybody is here. >> ok. there is a motion to -- >> a motion to grant the rehearing request and set the meeting for june 20. [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 5-0. the rehearing request is granted. the board's original decision

of 1998 is set aside and the new rehearing on the merits is to and 20th. thank you. >> let's take a quick break. my apology is -- to whoever is waiting on the next ca >> we will resume the meeting. this is the san francisco board of appeals. item #6 has been withdrawn. we have heard item number seven. we will move on to item number eight. laurie herraiz versus the department of building inspection. the property is at 395 arkansas

street. protesting the issuance, the permit to alter of building, complete internal remodeling, add new windows, and expand existing debt. -- deck. all the board members are here and we will begin with the appellant. >> you have seven minutes. >> thank you. thank you for staying so late and not running out for food. i live in the property directly adjacent. this is a neighbor who lives on the other side of the property as well. we filed this complaint because of things we saw going on out in the field that we thought needed to come to the attention of the department of planning and building inspectors. the things we did not think were kosher given our own

experiences. with three -- we have three main concerns. the timing of the permits and how that coincides with the work that was done. the scope of the permit. and the removal of hazardous materials. and the methods that were used. it is my understanding that the first permit was granted in october 2011 for kitchen and bath remodel. into january, the work that we celadon was a complete demolition of the interior -- that we solve done was a complete demolition. remover -- removal of part of the exterior wall on the second floor. new construction that built out the bay window.

building out over the sidewalk. that is an important point because the bay window permit is the one in question. that has already been started. a lot of the work is outside the scope and outside of the timing of the permit. my third point is about the removal of hazardous materials. neighbors have conversations with the contractors. we had questions about asbestos and lead. we were assured there was no asbestos in the building. subsequently, after this appeal was filed, there was asbestos testing and there is. there had not been any testing done before. the house was netted with a black netting. if the homeowner ask me if i had any concerns and i pointed out

that there was a 12-inch gap all the way up the side of the house. i was very concerned about lead, having gone through similar remodel in my house. he assured me that would be sealed the properly before any further work was done. i came home from work to days later, and half of that exterior wall was gone already. there was no lead testing done or notification done on that either. during the demolition process, the contractors dumped things into the backyard. it seemed like it was a very haphazard, it did not look like there was any effort to contain the dust. it looked very amateurish. we talked with the homeowner several times. each time, we got a different

answer. there seem to be a pattern of things not being consistent. for instance, the permit he applied for on february 3, that happened after two neighbors filed official complains. it was only then that he filed this permit. i also want to point out that in the three houses closest to the house in question, there are a total of five children living from the ages of 1 to 10. that is why i take the asbestos abatement very seriously. i wanted to bring this to the attention of the planning department. we have confidence in the system, but there is no way you can monitor everything that goes out in the field. given our interactions with the

homeowner, and the consistent pattern, that is why we filed this appeal. as a homeowner, we are wondering why he can do these things while the rest of us play by the rules. thank you. oh, i have pictures. this is the state of the house now. the only approved permits is forgotten -- active and kitchen remodel. this is the second floor. it has been removed. this is new construction on the second floor. the february permit was asking to enlarge a bay window.

it involves more than in march meant. it is going out over the perimeter -- enlargement. it is going out over the perimeter of the house, on to the sidewalk. there has been tremendous demolition. it does not coincide with the timing or the scope of the permits. thank you. >> what was the response? did you talk to building inspectors when you filed the complaints? number notices of violations issued? -- were there notices of violations issued? >> i called the planning department and talk to stephen smith, i believe.

i explained what was going on. my understanding is that on february 3, at the permit was filed for, but there was an appeals process. you cannot start construction until that appeal process has run its course. that is my understanding. all of this demolition has happened to clearly before the appeal process has ended. i talked to mr. smith about this and he said, that they have started construction? let me called the inspector that was on site for that. that was the end of the conversation. it gave me the feeling that, you know, construction had jumped the gun. the asbestos issue is a big one to me as well. the house -- i feel very familiar with this process

because i just did a major remodel. a 10-month project, got the permits, played by the rules. i do not understand -- there was no notification about this. it is a pretty significant project going on. all the asbestos had been removed without any net team or any kind of protection. -- netting and any kind of protection. we did talk to the building department. this at our best route was to appeal the permit. >> what is it that you're asking of this board? >> i am questioning the process. of applying for a permit to do a kitchen and bath remodeling. what i am saying is a major remodel -- what i am seeing is a major model.

and then applying for permits to do what has already been started. >> we want to put the brakes on the whole team -- whole thing for safety reasons. as the project moves forward, the homeowner will be compelled to take the appropriate safety steps for the remainder of the project. >> what was the last date that you saw construction taking place? >> it was the day before the appeal. february 21, i believe. >> i am confused on the facts. work should not have been happening? >> they applied for their permanent on february 3. there is a 15 or 18-day appeal process. >> if you believed all of this construction. now i get it.

and did you see the bay window being constructed and extended prior to the issuance of their permanent? that is what you stated? >> yes. >> thank you. it was only after you communicated to your neighbor 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. --