i don't know the details on how this developed. >> thank you. >> the permit is for one of three proposed buildings and the other two are not permitted? >> correct. this is be immediately adjacent property which is of relevance to the appellant. the status of the other two permits, if the project sponsor could address whether or not they have been issued. i would imagine that if they have been issued that they would be done by the appellant because they're not at issue. >> thank you. >> i have another question.

behind this property that is pdr? >> that is correct. >> behind this is the sf housing authority. >> this is a public zoning district in between the residential district and now a pdr2 zoning district. >> this was also previously industrial? >> that is correct. >> thank you.

>> the permit a seems to meet all of the building code requirements from the plans point of view but the addendum needs to come through the department. >> what do you do when one property encroaches on another one? >> to not get involved in these disputes, this is more of a civil issue. >> ok. >> typically, the sprinklers, the fire alarm, the gas meter, all of those things would have to be moved by the owner, in this case the appellant.

he would have to bear all the expenses? >> -- >> is that typical? >> i have personally never seen this. i thought it was unusual when i saw the photographs. not particularly with the gas meters when something needs to get moved. it could be shared or it could be born on one side or the other. we would stay out of it and let them work it out. >> or not. >> or not. >> we heard about grandfathering in those property line windows. can you talk about that? >> we don't use that word in the building department. this is not actually part of the building code but we hear this a lot.

those windows, if you were putting those in a building today, it would have to be fixed and you have to get through part of the san francisco building code and you would give up the right of those windows. >> would you need to get a declaration from your adjacent neighbors? >> in a situation where the windows existed and they are operable and someone will build a wall, they can stay? >> no, typically you would lose those windows. this happens all the time, unfortunately. there is not anything in our code. i am not sure if the windows are legal, that is the issue. i'm not sure if they are legal or not.

there would not be any plans for this. i noticed that in 1998, they went through a change of use and occupancy to change this from a warehouse to a dance studio. this change to an assembly occupancy. i don't know why this was not addressed at the time. this would not allow any opinions. i'm not sure what happened on that permit but if the code is correct, if the building code was used, i don't even see how those windows are on the property line. >> if that was a mistake made in 1998 and people have been relying on that to all of those

years, what is the solution? >> the pill department is not get involved in that. >> in with the owner of that building be required to close off those windows for fire reasons? >> in today's code, that would be the case, yes the. >> if this goes through, he will have the additional burden of having to shut those off and increase the fire resistance? >> yes. >> we would not cite that for that problem. this is something they should be thinking about.

>> it is there public comment? >> i have not been here in ages. we have a lot of sexy issues. the appellant of the dance house are good friends of mine. the issues to be good neighbors. that is the issue. mr. dufty has said that usually before now, they sat down and work this out. this is a discrepancy that should be worked out. there has been name-calling going on by the respondent

party. acting like a 9-year-old, threatening to put freight containers on the property, go ahead. put them there. what has been on that property has been atrocious. huge piles of dirt, old cars and abandoned cars for years. now they have put it hours to get this up to code. they do not a great job of running parties for 18 and over. many places to not allow that type of event. this provides a public service for the city. there is high regard in the dance community and they do the best they can and they try to be great neighbors because that is what is required of them. they don't have to have

notification. wouldn't it have been great to sit down and say, this is what we're doing with our building? what is a lousy four or 5 feet between buildings? they say they are putting non hazardous materials in those storage facilities. do we know they are not hazardous? what happens if they turn out to be? someone is not playing fair. someone is deciding to call people names and call people childish and that goes too far. i urge you that this is supposed to be fair to everyone. when you work with tax issues, you say, what is being fair to the party being aggrieved? the people who are aggrieved of the people running the dance studio. in closing, i want to say that i

went to usc and i learned that we need to get along no matter what race, nationality, country we are from. we all have the same goals and all have the same desires. in that spirit, we all need to strive to do better. i don't see that the other party is really caring what their neighbors do. thank you. >> we will move into rebuttal. >> regardless of what we think about grandfather clauses, the building department allowed us to keep our windows. we were required to put in

sprinklers. we would not have except that expensive fee could not keep them. here is another one. there are building plants. obviously, i change the nature of my building to warehouse to the highest use and the building plans were required from the time that my building was built. we do not have them here. they are on record. they show the windows, they were approved. this is between my property and the property line at 13 inches. that is shown on the building plots. unless my sister has anything. mr. murphy has told me that there is no negotiation.

>> that is the reason why we did not talk to the engineer because we talked to the owner. >> have you been at this location for 13 years? >> we have been there since 1997. and we moved there because so the station did not want our dance studio and club. >> have you gotten any estimates on what it would cost to move all of this utility? >> all of them, near to 100,000. >> have you gotten any estimates? >> i not gone any estimates but i have talked to contractors.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> let me make a correction here. my client has no ill will towards the neighbor. when the neighbor decided to through a change of occupancy, everyone in that neighborhood filed an appeal with the exception of mr. murphy. mr. murphy had no desire to harm the dance studio or any other operation. one more correction. the actual property line is 18 inches. there will be no need for relocation of the five sprinklers or any of the utilities. this is actually well within their property. this is 18 inches.

we have a survey that describes that. >> how would someone pass through 18 inches to read a meter or do the pressure test? >> it is in the front of the building. this is a accessible. >> you can read this through the fence? >> correct. my client has no ill will towards the neighbor at all. they did not appeal the change of occupancy. >> barrier wall, is that at the property line? >> right. >> if you have access with a setback for a couple of doors, it looks like. are there permits for the other two buildings? >> we have a site permit. we are in the process of filing

for an addendum. the construction permit would most likely be issued in a week. the appellant is claiming that there was a huge shropshires. they are two stories. there's nothing unusual. >> this site permit covers all three parcels. >> correct. only one has been appealed. >> it struck me that this went to the area where the appellant is unable to get to their own property. is that still in existence? is there any discussion about

the building of that fence? >> we can decide right now. >> it struck me as curious as part of the appellants argument one in this addressed by your side as well. >> more than happy to accommodate it. >> this is in regards to the property line windows. >> we heard from mr. duffy that sometimes property line windows are committed by the neighbors putting and light wells or that kind of thing. was that ever discussed in this situation? >> that rarely occurs. those windows have to be fixed. >> it that violates the code.

>> hasn't had any discussions between my client and the appellant in regards to the type of a pleasant walk, i don't think so. question might have been a light well to accommodate those windows. >> potentially. question sounds as though there was no discussion or movement on the part of your clients in order to accommodate those windows. thank you. >> is anything further? commissioners, then the matter is submitted.

>> i absolutely did not want to go first. i am very sympathetic to the appellate and his issues. this is a great expense that he will have to incur. he will lose some of the instrument he currently has of his property. in terms of issues having to do with planning codes and building codes, i just don't see where this board could provide any relief to -- >> i am of a similar opinion,

the broader question of taking the permit holders property to create the light well and access well both for the windows and utilities, this is not something i could normally support. the question in my mind is whether if one of them backed off from that position whether there is an ability to at least do a key things, one of them is the question of timing, if those certain elements have to be removed and relocated applying the appropriate timing to allow that to be done is one thing. instead of looking at it in

light of an entire set back across the property line, is there any other less prohibitive solution that would accommodate some of the utility's that would then not take this for footage away from the developers need for storage? it will probably not be successful but i would like to ask them to try to negotiate course i am looking at the site plan for those three buildings opposite conn street. there are light wells indicated.

>> i'm inclined to see if there is an opportunity for the parties to have a sit down. it seems to me that there has been an absence of an attempt to have any kind of relationship. >> i would tend to disagree. this has been noticed for quite a bit of time. the appellants have been granted full capacity and usage of their property and out of equity and fairness, it looks like mr. murphy is seeking the same.

conflict often arises in these tight industry areas. the appellants have a dance club and have amended the use. the highest use property as the appellant said. mr. murphy should have the same opportunity. >> i have one more question for mr. santos. i am looking at the site plan began and at the -- i am looking at the site plan again.

different elevations are a 12 light window. are they operable? in that middle layer or the whole thing. >> ok, thank you. >> i would make the following. i would ask for a continuance

for one month. they are in their structural addendum process. i will not let this drag out forever. the issue of the windows is gone. i am not prepared to support the taking of a significant setback across this property. i'm wondering if they can associate some level of access, whether it is utilities zero whether it is cutting openings through their own wall to provide that access.

this would reduce the financial impact and not impact the project significantly. let's see if they can come forth with anything. >> an alternative might be achieved by continuing this matter would be that perhaps the project sponsor might say that it would be less expensive for him rather than to participate in the plans but to anticipate the cost that would be incurred by the appellant and ordered to move these. it might not be very complicated. it might just involve shifting the direction of the gas meter so that can be read from the street. it might be possible to attach something to the sprinkler system so that you can detach it in some other direction.

i would be in favor of a continuance given the comments that were offered by commissioner fo. >> do you have a date? june 5th or 18th perhaps? >> june 8th or 15th, is either one of those acceptable? -- june 8th or 15th, perhaps? >> the sooner, the better. >> i move to continue this to june 8th. with the parameters that i laid forth and form some basis for discussion. >> are you interested in any

supplemental briefing or opportunity for the party is simply to report back orally? >> i think they should just report back. >> time for them to speak at the next hearing? >> three minutes. >> no additional briefing and. >> the motion is from commissioner fong to continue this matter to june 8th. the public hearing has been held. this is to allow time for the parties to settle. additional oral testimony will be allowed three minutes or so. on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. ] >> nop --

>> no. >> shall i call last item? and that is item number 10, appeal number 11-031, the property is at 1566-1568 haight street. this appeals a notice of violation and penalty dated august 24th, 2009, addressed to maybelle schumacher trust, regarding the legal expansion of the restaurant and bar space without required conditional use authorization. if we can start with mr. maloney or whoever is here to represent the appellant.

parks commissioners, i am the owner of mark 10 mac's restaurant. -- martin mack's restaurant. one thing that did happen, code enforcement had come out and give us an all clear. we had taken that. we realize we have to go back to the planning commission. we are quite willing to do this. we're willing to do that. we know that we had this very safe. this is the way should have been forced 21 years ago or 22 years hopefully, that is what happens. if you have any questions, i'm available to answer them.