will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i do not deny that the work was in fact done by us. a testament to what the gentleman just mentioned. the fact we had not what was going on. we were trying to save some money and get the work done ourselves. we know better now. for everything from here on out we would use a licensed contractor or plumber on an as needed basis. the amount of work was limited to the back part of the restroom. however, the citation mentioned a lot more work. we inadvertently were cited for stuff that was done by a previous tenant as well. that was something that was brought up between the landlord and myself. that was a big point of argument between the landlord and myself because i was trying to explain to her that we should not be held accountable for a lot of

the work that was done by a previous tenant. a lot of that ultimately got addressed between myself and the landlord. as far as the timeline and why it took so long, it was a matter of miscommunication. when the citations were posted at our business, we had access to those but during those days we were not at the restaurant during the daytime. we were not there at all business hours. we were doing work sparingly. we were doing the work after hours as well. again, we were in their painting and so on and so forth. we did not receive anything in the mail. a lot of the correspondence was done directly with the landlord and the landlord was in china for an extended time so we did not get the information from her. unfortunately, it went from being the first citation went to a second and third and eventually ended up in the hands of code enforcement.

eventually, despite the fact it took as long as it did, despite the fact it went through all the various steps, eventually when we were cited and we were in a situation where we had no choice, when we got the absolute paperwork, we took care of it. we got a licensed plumber to come in and replaced the work that was done. we spend it -- we ended up spending more money to fix the mistakes we made at the offset. a lesson to be learned. we could have gone this route the first way and we would have spent a lot of time and administrative powers and money as well. mistakes were made. we apologize. we took the corrective measures. i would like to get some of this money back. we could definitely use it. >> the penalty you pay is based

on the work that had to be done correctly in addition to work that had been done by a former tenant. >> correct. >> we spend upwards of $400 initially. and then when we -- that was when we did the work. we illegally did the work. we have to take the corrective measures and we spent upwards of $6,000 with a licensed plumber and in addition, we have to spend the 2007 hundred $99 for the penalty and we had to apply for permits and i do not remember the exact amount. it was upwards of $600. we spent close to $10,000 just to rectify this and that is why i am here going through the appeals process hoping we can

get some portion of that back and reapply it towards the business. >> have you read the least to see that you are responsible for all these expenses? what role is your landlord -- landlady, what role is she playing if the work was done prior to your tenancy? she>> if we took care of the citation and pay the penalties and applied for the permit and if we pass inspection, that would be good enough. we had an understanding with the landlord. if we did all we needed to do, and the citation was debated, that would be the end of the discussion as far as i was concerned. >> as far as it was concerned? >> as far as the citation was concern. >> what role is the landlord playing in all this?

>> that work we have not done. that part of the restaurant has not been addressed. >> the penalty you are paying is not based on the prior work because you have not got the permit for that yet. the nine times work you had done. >> exactly. it is for the work we did. fy vice president gar vice president garcia: thank you. >> you said there was a posting. you and the people and your staff did see the notice of violation. >> there is a little bit of confusion. >> did you see the notice of the violation? >> the first one. i did. >> go ahead. >> a little bit of confusion regarding how our business addresses laid out.

we are located at 536 golden gate ave. and the space adjacent to ours is 544 golden gate ave. the permanent address for the building is 544 golden gate ave. our landlord, the llc is 544 golden gate avenue associates. when there is mailings that take place, sometimes instead of being sent to a said 536, they are sent to 544. there are not any tenants at 544. there was a builder-developer that was taking up the office space at 544. they are doing construction on the new pc building across the street. when they left a lot of the mail was being forwarded from 544 to our landlord's home address. there is a lot of lead time between that.

that, coupled with the fact that our landlord was that of the country attending to some family matters, made it so that there was a lot of miscommunication. mailings never made it to me. never were in my possession until significantly later down the road. the initial citation to place in august of last year. i did not get access to the second or third violation until january. we had some issues between the landlord trying to figure out who was responsible for what. eventually, additional time lapsed and it ended up in the hands of code enforcement. >> what did you think when you saw the first notice of violation? >> that i need to figure out how much of this i was responsible for. >> you did not think it was attributable to your space or

your work? >> back to the work that was done prior to your tenancy. is there still an nov outstanding on the work that needs to be permitted? >> there is not. we have been instructed when we move forward, we proceed to do construction on that front end of the restaurant which is where the kitchen is going to be. we will apply for the necessary permits for that work. we're in that process right now. >> i thought you said when the nov was issued it was issued on your unpermitted work. >> won the final inspection took place and the gentleman came out to do that inspection, we were, i was part of the walk through with a licensed plumber. we have two separate issues

here. the back end of the restaurant where the restrooms are, that is where we have performed the work. the front end of the restaurant where the kitchen is. we also got cited for that and i was able to show the inspectors by virtue of having him presence inside the restaurant that we have not touched anything. he saw the space and he knows we have not done any construction. the remains untouched. he was able to abate the citation based on the fact that we were not wrongfully cited but we should have been cited for the scope of the work we performed at the back end of the restaurant near the restrooms but we did not touch anything at the front end. i did mention to the inspector that we were going to remodel the kitchen area and we would install new plumbing and new gas lines. the new grease trap. he mentioned that in doing so,

retaining a licensed plumber and apply for the necessary permits. we're in the process of doing just that. for the front end of the restaurant. >> does this find that you're asking to be reduced include the work that was done prior to your tenancy? >> i do not believe it does. >> thank you. mr. duffy, anything further? no? the matter is submitted. >> i cannot figure out how they got to the figure they did. if -- if it is nine times the permit. you do eight and add the fee to arrive at the figure? i do not how they arrived at 2799. if he is not worried about it i do not know that i should.

>> that would be based upon at nine times, it would be based upon a penalty fee of $311. >> no. nine times. >> i -- this is the most time we ever spent on a penalty case. i disagree with the department in that i think nine times, given the fact that this individual is very plausible, the reason for not having responded to this and that is one of the things the department had its most ire over, the fact that they did not respond to the nov's and had to go to a code enforcement. pending the comments of my fellow commissioners, i recommend we overturn and

produce five times. >> i agree with those comments and i think five times as consistent and similar to the penalty we agreed to in the first case tonight. >> i do not know i agree in this case. i am jumping in before the other two commissioners have spoken. we did hear clearly that even if the second and final warnings were mis-mailed or somehow did not make it into the hands of the appellant. the notice in august of the original nov, it was 10 months before this was finalized and we did hear from the department, the nov, the second nov, the warning, the inspection.

there was quite a lot of work done by the department. additionally, the use of plumbing that is not even allowed to be used in the city. there is all sorts of issues with using plastic in plumbing and the toxins that are released. i am leaning the other direction. >> other comments, commissioners? >> there is enough here to reduce. i would support some reduction. whereas i did not in the last one. >> more comments or does someone want to make a motion? >> i move we overturn and reduce the penalty to five times. the permit fee. >> based on your prior stated reasons. >> thank you for helping me out. >> do you want to refresh your

memory? >> the reasons are it appeared that the -- the reason i disagree had to do with the fact there was some miscommunication as to notice. for that reason, and the fact that this gentleman seemed to have been sincere in his lack of knowledge of the fact he had to get a permit, if you had covered the water heater, you would need a permit. which of those do you want to grab? >> defective notice. the owner did not know how to get a permit. >> call the roll, please. >> we have a motion. >> i have a follow-up comment. i was persuaded by the comments

of my fellow commissioners. >> on that motion from the vice- president. to grant this appeal, reduce the penalty to five times the regular fee on the basis there was defective notice and the palin did not know a permit was needed. -- appellant did not know a permit was needed. the vote is 5-0. the penalty is reduced to five times. >> thank you. with the president's consent, i will call item seven out of order. i have understood there is a settlement to this matter. calling appeal 11-029. subject property is that 3355 pacific ave. protesting the issuance of a permit to alert a building, new

roof top deck, new stair and stair conclusion -- enclosure. no interior construction. >> i knew ms. louise patterson when she was on the zoological society. that does not impact my decision. >> good evening, commissioners, president goh. i am representing arthur and the les paterson -- eleaslouise patterson. several components are embedded in a revised set of architectural drawings on august 16. we adhered -- we are here to request the board take jurisdiction of the permit and require dbi to approve those

drawings as a permit of conditions. specific changes from the permit under appeal include the following. as shown on the overhead. the skylight has been reduced considerably in height. the skylight that covers a stair penthouse, a skylight 5 has been trumped in its footprint and reduced in height. there is an agreement that as a result of the infill of the allied court on the respondents property, they will paint the walls abutting the light court in a reflective color. there are restrictions that would cast clear offside. in terms of elevation, they have a black line shows to the heights of the skylights that were approved and under appeal.

the yellow highlights show what the parties have agreed to in terms of height. if the board has any questions, we would be happy to discuss it. >> attorney for the permit holder. we're in agreement with the conditions set forth. material component of the settlement is in agreement to provide access to complete the project. that is something that my clients are relying on in agreeing to reduce the scope of the permit. we will be asking the permit be processed through the board of appeals in order to move this forward. >> is there any departmental common?

-- comment? >> this evening. -- good evening. department staff is always pleased when the parties can come to resolution. this is the first chance we have had to look at these plans. a reduction in the proposed building and look, we would not object in any terms for any reason to this proposed settlement. >> is there any public comment? >> i am an attorney for --

they live near the subject property. we submitted an interested party brief earlier. we are party to the settlement. we support everything that has been said and we encourage you to take jurisdiction and to direct planning issued the permits. >> do you have a document you can submit to the board that articulates this agreement? we will need to have specifics to issue a permit. >> i do. it is not completely executed. once it is i will promptly provide a copy. you should have a draft that was provided to you before the hearing. the final draft, i should say. >> i wonder if we can -- i am

interrupting. i wonder if we could have a quick conversation about what mechanism we have for doing -- i do not believe we can issue a permit from here. without planning having reviewed it carefully, without us having seen it at all. i wonder if there is a cleaner way to go about approving the settlement. >> i believe what has been requested is the board would condition the permit and the special conditions permit would be issued and that does go review at planning. we need a list. that is the concern. we need to know the specifics. >> the concern we have if we file a revision, we have lower the height greater than 6 inches

and a permit is required. it is subject to another appeal. this is a standard deal when you are reducing the height. >> i do not think the concern is whether or not the board can do it. the concern is getting the specifics of we know what the board is being asked to do. >> this is part of our request of the board. we will have a full executed agreement that will detail itemized changes that have been made and we will have a very complete, full set of plans for the departments and the board. >> is there something we could show you tonight in the architectural plans that would help clarify the concerns? >> why can't we ujust uphold the appeal -- and [inaudible]

president goh: in order for a special permit to be positioned, i need to review and make sure those plans conform to the agreement to the board's decision. without knowing what the modifications are, it makes the task impossible. >> whether it is a final list today for a sheet -- or a sheet or drawing, it is irrelevant. it has to be final. they are unable to give that to us right now. that is the problem. >> i am wondering if you have plans that are specific. >> we do, and i understood they had been given to you before the hearing. perhaps i was wrong. i do have a set for you. >> maybe this can be resolved while we hear the next case. you can give them to staff. >> these are the revised plans that will be submitted in full

set with the request for the boa permit. >> the board could act on the specifics noted in this plans. condition the permit on the changes specified in the revised plan set that has been submitted to the board tonight. >> that would be a plan set that planning has not reviewed. >> if planning does not like the board special conditions permit, they will reject it. >> i see. >> they will have an opportunity to look at it. that will not get issued until planning and dbi -- >> that is fine with me. >> i think we are in deliberations. i jumped ahead, i am sorry. we are in deliberations, commissioners. any comments? >> i am going to move to oppose

the appeal. >> grant the appeal conditioning? >> accept the submitted set as reflective of the conditions of their agreement. and to allow them to issue a special conditions permit. >> for the record, the set that has been given to me is revision 1 dated august 16, 2011. >> that is in my motion. >> you can call the roll. i believe vice president garcia's mike firn is not working. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant this

appeal and -- to be conditioned with revised plans. on the motion, president goh. president goh: it was revision one on this date? >> revised plans dated august 16. president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> this is upheld with revised plans. >> thank you. >> item 6. appeal no. 11-021. subject property is that 1649

haight street. replace billboard involuntarily removed without owner authorization. billboard to replaced -- be replaced exactly in kind. work is at exterior only. work is not associated with any commercial space. we will start with the appellant. who has seven minutes. >> if we could stop one second. i am on behalf o thof the appellants here. they are the owners behind front properties. cdf did file a brief and in my opinion they are trying to read litigate things this board decided 10 years ago -- relitigate things this board

decided to end years ago -- 10 years ago. this if for your use. if it becomes an issue, it is not in my presentation but given the way the process is before this board, i cannot respond. usually i file a brief and there is a response. i do not have the right. i could not do anything so i am trying to anticipate problems. >> you're asking the board whether it is going to accept -- jul >> i am willing -- asking if they are willing to accept the transcripts. >> we need a motion to except it. is there motion, commissioners? >> i would so move. president goh: is there any common from planning on this? any comment from planning to

accept additional evidence and transcripts proposed? is there any comment on the motion? if if you could call the roll. >> on the motion from the vice- president to accept additional documents from the appellant, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. >> president goh. president goh: aye. >> these additional documents are accepted. >> you have seven minutes. >> we would like to do right now is -- kevin is with me, the owner. this is not the first time this matter was before the court. i was not here. he has gone through a