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 lot and i

want him to discuss with you and tell a little bit about how cbs and clear channel, how these deep pocket firms, how the extort property owners in attempting to get lower prices and also to cut out any competition in the market. this is kevin strain. goshaw>> we bought this buildina 1906 building in april, hard may, november of 2001.

we inherited the leaks, we have nothing to do with it. it was after it was ratified by the previous ownership. it was a perpetual eyesore. consequently, we are getting $710 a year. it was costing more than that to keep the graffiti off of the billboards. cvs never responded to and could not care less. we terminated the leases on or around april of 2009. prior to that, we entered into a

lease with a company called a national promotional advertising. basically, their market was the 20 or thirtysomething. we entered into a eradicated piece of the building owners. the lease was going to be 1500's. that bill border was set on that building in november of 1951, never been changed over. it was in the name of west coast advertising, the company that was a predecessor to the outdoor systems.

currently, we were promptly sued by the outdoor systems, a duopoly in san francisco. today, we have incurred $110,000 of legal fees trying to get the sign and our name, and we're just small landlords. we are not some big operation in san francisco. we have had to defend ourselves and we have felt that what we are attempting is to allow us to have that sign back, it was our property. in 1951, back to the property owners. thank you.

>> what i have on the overhead is a picture of the billboard at issue. you concede that it is a fairly small billboard. you are going to be wondering, why have they been forcing everybody, small property owners -- you're talking about little billboards that don't generate a lot and the big scheme of things >> this was taken in the midst of the appeal here last year. i have is pointing to where the billboard is. what occurred was, when they terminated the least, we got a letter saying that we want you to authorize involuntary removal. that was the letter. they said voluntary, but i said that we can do this.

you have lost your right. they turned around and immediately sued. when this was happening, and they found out that it was infested with termites. maybe you have heard about the case before. they came in here with a d construct permanent. they said, we want to cure the problem. it came before the board. they denied a permit, and denied our reconstruction. we reached a settlement after all of these fees generated and just went crazy. we said, let's get out of this, let's settle this. we're going to talk about what you have done, lawsuits against other property owners, and we will settle. the deal was nothing about

voluntary removal. we did not object to summary judgment. what occurred was hot, going quickly, how 43 seconds. after the order came out and they went in with their permit, it said a voluntary. i said, our agreement was no language on voluntary, just removal. don't create the issue. they took it back, redid it, and i get a letter from a think mr. purpose and he says, these people want to voluntarily remove the billboard and respond to it? anyway, i documented in my pleadings.

>> i have a question for you. can he say what happened next? >> i asked him after to respond to the letter, and ascetic, let me see what the permit is. i had gone on the earlier and i saw that it was voluntary removal. they had agreed not to do that. they sent me the permit that they had revised, and they had struck out be voluntary. i wrote him a letter, a long letter explaining the lawsuit and explaining that this was not a voluntary removal. that we had been sued because we had not agreed to have it removed. we were