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 have much to add 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.