in renovation project of a nine- unit building and also impact in the lead of other tenants in the building who have already been displaced and you are waiting. president goh: you made the argument, counsel. other commissioners have time. commissioner fung: how is this that the work stops on all of the other units? >> because the permits are issued across the board for all of the units. they are not for each unit. they are a permit that covers the full building. commissioner fung: well, you may not be able to finalize a permit, but why does the stock -- you made the statement about a cessation of work for the rest of the units. how does that work? >> it is my understanding that jurisdiction is granted, and thereafter, if he filed an appeal the are detached to this determination notice, all work on those permits must seize, and

that includes the whole building. to the extent that you believe that is not the case and that would only apply to mr. mooring's unit, then i stand corrected. commissioner fung: we will ask the building department. commissioner hwang: that is my understanding, as well, and one of the things and we may consider is a modification of the permits of the work can continue for the units. i am just putting it out there. >> it would be a preference obviously to allow those -- commissioner hwang: for those who do not have a problem and are not contesting it, but i'd like to hear from counsel. is that in our jurisdiction to modify? >> if you were having a hearing on the merits, that you might have the ability to do this

except for the unit with the individuals here, but you are not that stage yet. you're at the stage of allowing them to file an appeal, and the moment they file an appeal, it would stay the permit before they come back before you, and then perhaps you can give that kind of remedy either in the intermediate or long-term, but there is no way now that you could reach that result in this hearing. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> and that is the concern about the significance of this jurisdictional request, and that is why we're asking that it be denied. commissioner hwang: i am sorry. before you sit down, i did another question about the equipment, that seems to be part of this issue. i think i heard you say or the owners say that there has been no communication around potential resolution directly between the requester and the

owner or his contractor. has there been any offer to sell assist the requester in moving that equipment to buehrle to some of site location or somewhere so it will not be his problem? >> to the extent that he is willing and ready to communicate with my opposite regarding a compromise in some capacity, we are absolutely ready to do so. i would like to point your attention like toe as a reference -- point your attention to exhibit e, where we were not even able to access his unit for inspections, and there is an apartment full of large exercise equipment that mr. mooring does not want to transition out, and this is what is underlying the dispute, in that he simply does not want to

handle that issue, and that is an issue that is required in order for my client to write for the renovate a building in san francisco that has not been renovated for many, many years or decades. my client is doing a service to the community, and we believe that mr. mooring is standing in the way of that. commissioner hwang: thank you. i have nothing further. director goldstein: is there department comment? mr. duffy? inspector duffy: this was over the council approval, and i heard the eyebrows comment about the cost. certainly, four bathrooms, a kitchen and bathroom remodeling, it seems a lot.

again, if you were going to do the job right, maybe not so much that he wants to do that in his building, typically, in these types of buildings, we would see maybe and lower-cost because they are probably not the high- and finishes -- high-end finishes, but it is in the realm of possibilities. regarding been noticed it, we did get a complaint, and we went with my district building inspector, mr. green, and we did see some work being done on the ground for that did have a number on the door, 104, and there was something that had been removed, and that was obviously not in the scope of the permit, and that is why we issued a notice of violation. they were then to comply with

the notice of violation. i do not believe that that permit is under appeal. there were some wallace and finishes that were removed. president goh: was that a separate unit? >> i cannot say it was a unit. it had a number, 104, but it had no kitchen or bathroom in it. there was demolition. it was not part of the nine areas. president goh: demolition had been done? >> yes, there were some pipes that had been demolished, and that may have been the only demolition done, and it may have been due to expose the plumbing to do work in the above units, but when i went there, there were some finishes removed in excess of having a couple of nonstructural walls, but whether it was a unit or not, it was not when i went there. president goh: it was not when

you went there, but it had a number on it. >> i believe in the permit, they call that the storage area to comply with the notice of violation, so -- i do not think the complaint was with a related unit. it is just that they exceeded the scope of the permit, so we cannot call it an illegal bid, because there is no one living there, and there were no cooking facilities. commissioner fung: were there any electrical panels or things there? >> no, no, not that i can recall. commissioner hwang: i have a question similar to what i was asking earlier. we are on this board, and i was

wondering whether or not you could tell us whether or not your department would be amenable to accepting an amendment to the blanket permit for all nine and have them done on eight units that would not impact mr. mooring's unit? inspector duffy: yes, there is nothing to stop them with the nine permits, which does happen. that is entirely up to the permit holder. commissioner hwang: at this time, you have a single permit for the nine units, and you'd be open to a modification of existing permit so as to make them into eight and leave the one alone until this dispute is resolved.

inspector duffy: i do not think we would object to it or stop it, no. commissioner hwang: 50. director goldstein: is there any public comment? please step forward. president goh: i do not see anyone else on this item. >> donny hue. first, i want to remain the commission, which needs reminding, that this is a jurisdictional issue, and i am very familiar with the 201 clinic, because we had used the service many times, and he makes much ado that they helped him make up a complaint, and we might point out that in my letter, i point out that there was a sin of omission by the appellant, that had the appellate come to the residential builders with the same complete, we would have helped him fill out the

complaint also based on the facts that he gave her, because he committed quite a great deal. if you read his complaint, in his complaint, he said he had no response of the remodeling going on in this instance until approximately late january, february. that timing is crucial, but he committed it. he knew before even december before the permits were applied for the door modeling was going to take place. he also knew that the owner was in touch with all of the other tenants, so it belies the state of ignorance that he does not know. that is absolutely not true. also, ms. fox would be here, and on the jurisdictional issues, she came down. she got my letter, which pointed

out the disparity between which the appellant was alleging and what the reality was, and the reality is that he knew ahead of time in december about what was going to happen, and yet, in his complaint, he claims that mr. o'sullivan was some sign -- some type of demon who was using some sort of subterfuge. if you read that complaint, there is a broad disparity. secondly, on the issue of remodeling, because that is how i make my money in korea. let me tell you, when you remodel a full building, he took out enough money, because when you go in, the pipes are all independent. you cannot just remodel one unit and one unit and one unit. you're going to put in new meters. that is what was done. as the attorney for the owner properly pointed out, this

tenant has the right to move back in korea all of the other tenants have reached an agreement, and he is going to be an obstructionist, and i do not think is good for the commission to reward an obstructionist. we need to do something. if we're going to move forward, the people that like to you, we need to do something about this. we need to punish it rather than rewarded, and you are going to punish the property owner, and that is not fair. commissioner hwang: excuse me, are you on behalf of any particular entity? >> absolutely not. i am here representing myself. i am speaking on behalf of mr. o'sullivan. i am not associated with him. commissioner hwang: you

mentioned raquel fox. >> we have gone to her. when people were being evicted, that is correct. we took up the issue. thank you. note director goldstein: any of the public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. there are two. commissioner fung: all right,

commissioners. i blink first. the question here in terms of the process is to fold. one, i believe that the appellant's rights are with you breadboards, and the question is, where those rights affected by the permit and by the owner abrogated in any sense? i do not see that. i see a difference of opinion, but i do not see any facts to substantiate that. the building owner and permit holder also have certain rights, and at this point, i would not support taking jurisdiction.

commissioner hwang: i will go next. as much sympathy as i have for the appellants, it is a jurisdictional issue. i think commissioner fung's items taken, and i am sure that he will make good on his commitments taken tonight. president goh: well, i am torn. i agree with what has been said

to some extent, and i am also concerned when an alleged senior is told "we are going to give you a note one way or another, and if need be, we will eillis act, and the notices are a little bit troubling, too, finding out after the 15-day period -- 15-day period to appeal. on the other hand, we do need to show that it was some act of the city that caused the delay in filing, so i am not sure that i see that or that i see it well enough.

commissioner hwang: there are some statements on the record were a do not see any support for those statements. it is difficult here to try to make a finding of fact when all the facts are not before you, but -- i do not know. i do not know where i am going to fall at this point. this is a difficult one, but as -- because as president goh said, it does trouble me when tenants are evicted. an inconvenience is not a small thing, and while the city has some laws to help ameliorate it, it is sometimes not enough, so that is where the conflict lies,

but this is a jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: commissioners, i am going to move to deny the jurisdiction request. director fung: on the motion to deny both of the jurisdiction requests, president gohm commissioner petersonm commissioner hwangm ijm -- ok, and vice president garcia is absent, and the boat is 2-2, and the request will be denied as a matter of what. so, president goh, should i call the next item? ok.

president goh: this one, one second. commissioners, do you want a break? we have two more. let's go ahead. director goldstein: ok, we are going to go to item number six, for the division of taxis and accessible services. this is about an appeal of a taxi medallion. jurisdiction was granted. the public hearing was held in december 2010, and it is for further consideration today. the matter was continued to allow time for the mta to about the weight. we will hear from the parties, starting with the appellant.

>> three minutes, starting now. with great reluctance but with the firm belief is in the best interest of the appellants, i and went to request an appearance -- a continuance to have the full board hear this. director goldstein: as you understand, when there is a missing commissioner, and the vote would make a difference -- >> my understanding in that in order to overturn the decision, and for your votes are needed. director goldstein: if you have three votes, " where the missing

commissioner would have a difference, it would be continued. >> i'd like to ask a continuance. i would not like -- i do not want to do it, but i would feel bad if i did not. commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. president goh: i am sorry. what did you say? commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. >> we have no objection to a continuance. president goh: ok, it looks like the next possible date of the full board, when you will be here at 1:00 a.m. would be may 25. is that acceptable? directors goldstein: you have seven items on the calendar for that night. >> yes, that is acceptable.

president goh: directors goldstein just reminded me that we already have seven items on that calendar, so we will be quite late, because the next day to where we have a full board is not until july 20. >> so we would be item number what on the 25th? >> it -- president goh: on may 25, you would be eighth, i think. director goldstein: typically, continued cases would be earlier, but someone will be at 1:00 a.m.. >> we would like to have the earliest possible date, but i feel very strongly that it is in the client's best interest to let everyone here, everyone discuss it, and everyone vote on

it at the same time. commissioner fung: commissioners, given the recent history where some of the meetings of gone extremely long, i think it is unfair, not only to commissioners who are tired, but to the public and to the appellants with respect to how much energy and how much attention we can apply to their cases, so i would suggest that we do not block this. nobody is prejudiced by this. for the final records for 2011, i would suggest that we take it out to july 20. president goh: >> the other option is to just hear it tonight, and then brought -- vice president garcia would watch the video. those could be the two choices,

and the appellate might -- i am sorry, director goldstein, do you have a comment? commissioner hwang: the other item would be to re-order this and put it an -- at the end. president goh: typically, we do not like the department to stay, but you're indicating that it would be ok with you. mr. jarvis is indicating that that would be fine with him. there are three alternatives on the table now, and we are getting what counsel. it seems that there are three alternatives on the table now.

commissioner fung: i am used to the late hours, but there have been some recent meetings where i have recognized that the energy was lacking. president goh: yes, they are brutal. >> yes, they are brutal. president goh: i would just assume here in july 20 it. we can hear it now or july 20. absolutely, please. >> just a moment. president goh: yes, please.

>> a point of information, was one of the alternatives for commissioner garcia to watch the meeting and vote? president goh: if you were to go forward, we would continue to allow him to vote, in which case he needs to watch the video, and then -- >> then i understood. four votes. we would have five people present. president goh: i understand. >> may i talk to mr. g

>> we are resuming be april 6, 2011, meeting of the board of appeals. >> in the interest of having every one year, healthy and happy, we will go for july, even though we do not like the length of time. we think it is the most optimal solution. that is july 21? director goldstein: 20th. president goh: is there a motion, commissioners? commissioner fung: a motion to continue it until july 20.

president goh: no further briefing? commissioner fung: i think they should be allowed a short one. if something has changed, i think that is ok, a maximum of three pages. director goldstein: do you want simultaneous briefing? commissioner fung: that would be fine. director goldstein: unlimited exhibits. the thursday prior to the hearing. mr. murray, do you understand? ok. three pages. and i called for public comment already, so i will call the roll. this is on commissioner fung's motion to continue this until july 20, 2011. president goh, commissioner peterson, commissioner