>> when you say discretion, what exactly do you mean? commissioner peterson: paragraph 8, in the sole opinion, the continued maintenance of the structure is impractical or an economical -- well, let me just start at the beginning. that whole paragraph basically allows the lessee to determine in its own opinion whether or not to maintain the fine. >> well, not exactly. i do not think it is an illusory provision. oftentimes, especially in the

city, they will complete the make it uneconomic, so sometimes neighborhoods will change -- they will complete the make it uneconomical. whether it is uneconomical or whether it is blocked, there are certain criteria, if that is what you're asking. commissioner hwang: you are saying that this does not provide your client with a soul ability to make this determination? >> any determination has to be made in good faith. because it is a contract, i do not think a determination could be made in bad faith. >> turning to paragraph 3 of your lease, that allows the leslie the right to make any necessary applications, permits,

etc., but for the construction and maintenance of the full discretion of lessee. all such permits shall always remain the property of the lessee, so can you explain that authority to operate the sign, get permits, bill and signs, remove signs. i think that is how it sounds. however, the issue here is not really authority. the issue here is agency and whether or not we were acting on behalf of mr. espinosa, and i think that is where the issues diverge. commissioner hwang: ok, thank you. commissioner fung: would you like to respond? i think i had heard from the previous hearing that he had not been paid for quite awhile.

would you like to provide a little history of that? >> i have not examined the payment history, to be honest with you, but what i do know is that there is a property manager, a property management company that has been involved on this property for some time, and the payments may have gone to the property manager. mr. espinoza may not have known if the payments were made. i am also aware that there was a lag time between the purchase of the property by mr. espinosa edd notification of cbs, paying the prior property owner went for some time. i do not know exactly how long that was. those are all the facts that i know. president goh: let me ask you,

because i saw it when i watched it on the video, but the owner was invited to speak, and he declined to speak and allow you to speak for him. can you talk about that? >> well, what i can say to that is prior to the hearing, i was in contact with the property management company. president goh: ok, thank you. so, commissioners, we are in deliberations, and i can start because we just said that. some of my notes from the hearing that i watched on the video, at the hearing, cbs claims that they were an authorized agent for the

applicant, and in the same questions that commissioner hwang asked that she just did about payment, and the hearing was, "did you receive payment from cbs during the ownership?," and he said, "i do not remember when the last payment was," and the fact that he was invited to speak and declined to speak. any other comments, commissioners? commissioner hwang: i am troubled by contradictions of that. i do not believe there are new facts, and i do agree with the department's position that it is simply new arguments. president goh: is there a

motion? commissioner fung: it was an interesting argument been my counsel -- made by counsel about who has the rights would be permitting, and the logic is that, yes, of course, the owner has some rights with respect to what occurs on their property. when i asked for the lease, it was not so much to let get this sort of comprehensive rights of the vc and the owner of the billboard, it was more in terms of what establishes the sort of code ownership relationship in terms of approvals necessary with respect to the permit, and

part of that then relates to whether that co-owner relationship was maintained through the conditions of belize, which have involved payments. it appears that payments were not being made before the particular nature of the ownership agreement was probably not in place, and therefore, if i was to read into the rights of the leafy, they have full rights then to remove or replace the billboard, and therefore, i would support the department's position in this case. president goh: is there a motion, commissioners?

commissioner hwang: i move to deny both of the requests? director goldstein: of these or both? one was made by cbs outdoor. so emotion than from commissioner hwang is to deny the request. on that motion, commissioner fung, commissioner hwang, commissioner peterson, and vice president garcia is absent, and the motion carries, the vote 3- 0. calling then item 5-b, 7123.

this is requesting that the board take jurisdiction over 2011/01/18/8485 and 2011/01/21/8757, which were issued on january 18, 2011, in january 21, 2011, respectively. the first is a kitchen and bath remodeling project, a new

hardwood floor, new interior paint 49 apartment units, no structural work, and the second permit is for repair, no structural work, and it does not affect the safety. we will start with mr. mooring, or your representative, the requester. >> thank you. my attorneys do not contessa they waited the 15-day period for the appeal to expire. i was actually resigned to not appeal and, although i feel i have the basis for a very meritorious appeal, but when they began work on a unit 104, which is an illegal unit, which is not on any of the permits, they started an extensive remodel of that unit, and i had actually been promised that my right would be more than doubled through passthroughs, and i believe that work in this unit was possibly tied to some kind of intend to defraud, so i

contacted the department of building inspection and submitted a complete about it. my first complaint was debated. my second complaint was filed, when i submitted photographic evidence of a significant work that was being done to that unit. but i spoke to inspector duffy and other staff at dbi, and they were very courteous and professional. inspector duffy told me that the contract costs associated with the project had raised eyebrows, and based on the description of work being done, -- commissioner hwang: would you meinecke speaking louder? i cannot hear you. >> the contract costs associated

with the permit had raised eyebrows and seemed exorbitance based on the description of work being done. when the photographs were submitted that refuted whatever the owners were cleaning, i got a very angry phone call from their agent, and i mentioned that to inspector duffy, as well, because those photographs were apparently used to refute that, whatever work was being done, and that is basically the basis for my request for jurisdiction, that this new incident regarding uncommitted work in unit 104, that gives me the right to ask for an appeal. i did seek legal advice. i went to the tenderloin housing clinic, and she helped me to

prepare the jurisdiction request. as to the meritorious appeal, that is actually much easier for me to prove. in my first meeting with the landlord's agent, mr. o'sullivan, i was told of their intention was to tenancy in common. that necessarily means that all of the current tenants had to leave, in he did, in fact, in for me that i would be gotten out of the building one way or another, and he listed several ways that they could use to get me out of the building. the first was an inspection of my apartment to find fault korea the second one was a ciop -- cip, where they said they could get me up for several months with the promise of more months, and then they would double my rent, and that if everything else fails, they would -- [bell]

commissioner hwang: who was the person who made these statements to you? >> that would be mr. o'sullivan from the construction company. commissioner hwang: that would- be contractor? .thank you. ok. commissioner fung: sir, this building, is that the only address for this building could >> yes, it is. commissioner fung: so when you made the statement that the units were not included, what was the basis -- >> that is an illegal unit. commissioner fung: which one? number one? >> number one hundred four. >> it is on the first floor of the building and is designated as a storage area. president goh: 80. director goldstein: ok, we can hear from the permit holder now.

>> my name is barry sherman. i am a residence in san francisco. i do not own any other properties. i purchased this because i it was undervalued duke or performance over the past 36 years. my plan was to correct all deficiencies with a major renovation of the entire property, which would necessitate the all tenants would have to vacate korea i was aware that there were tenants who wished to move back in good and followed all regulations in implementing the plan. quired to the close of expert -- of escrow, my representative met with others, including him, to explain what the options would be. in the second meeting, mr. mooring said that he would not

vacate. he has since refused to speak to mr. o'sullivan, but then he said he was aware that permits had been issued. we are currently proceeding with work in six apartments that have been vacated. two units will be vacated within several days. i kindly ask the to allow me to continue the ongoing work and ask you that you deny his jurisdiction request. i assure you that mr. mooir -- mooring will be allowed to move back in when the work is completed. >> hi, my name is -- i and the attorney for mr. sherman. i want to emphasize that granting jurisdiction in this matter will result in the complete cessation of all remediation work at the nine- unit structure, including six units that are currently vacant

where we mediation has already occurred. in addition, there is a tenant who has already left the building with the anticipation of coming back within three months, and it jurisdiction is granted on behalf of this gentleman, but tended to has just left, his plans will be interrupted, as well. important, mr. o'sullivan has reached out repeatedly to mr. mooring without success. there has been no underhanded or malfeasance in our conduct. there was a termination notice. he has, pursuant to san francisco rent control law, the absolute right to return. he will be given, as long as the timely vacate and is consistent with the rent ordinance, $8,500 to transition out temporarily. the notice was attached, and most importantly, he has the right to come back in at you read that he is paying right

now. the big issue is that mr. moo ring is being obstinate, and he does not want to temporarily relocate. we find that this interference is wholly inappropriate, and most importantly, our building -- our goal is to renovate a building and make it beautiful and allow them to come back, including mr. mooring, and he would be given an upgraded building. but.director goldstein: i am sorry per your time is wop -- your time is up. the timer is not working, but your time is up. president goh: you said he could come back at the same rent? >> at the time of him coming back again at the completion of the renovation project, because

no past repetition has been filed, he would be entitled to come in at the bread that is currently in place. if my clients and chooses to submit a pastor petition, he has the right to contest the pass through and also has the right to allege a hardship so his rent will not be increased due to his economic situation. the concern we have is essentially one person is potentially through this jurisdictional issue prickling 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