. i am here to ask a conveyance of tapes -- dates, because we did meet this last thursday at my request, and he was much more interested in finding the legality about whether i have permits and was more interested in going through my building to find violations. i do not believe the good faith negotiations for something as simple as blocking my windows and utilities. i directed him to go outside and inspect the area in question. we talk about it. he asked me how much money i wanted to make him go away.

i was insulted. i told him, did you read anything i sent to you? he kept saying, i am here now. i dindo you know the response to . i was willing to settle for something less. what do you think of that? no reply. they just asked me how much money i wanted. then he asked me if i knew any of the inspectors in the building department and if it might pass the fire inspection or if i would like to have another inspection called. they also asked me about the entertainment commission. i have all my permits.

if you would like to see them, they are tired of the legal. i was insulted by the entire meeting. mr. murphy is not ready to be neighborly that is it. >> and we are willing to negotiate something less than 5 feet and we were willing to meet with him to do so and in response to our permits we do have an updated permit for our place of entertainment and our public assembly and all of those other things that really cost us

a lot of money every year to renew and also to ensure. we would like to not go through the whole permit process to redo our utilities and our windows and fire sprinkler utilities to make for the building to come right up to hours and -- two to ours. thank you. >> on the overhead. do have to say the word,

overhead. thank you. >> the place of entertainment and the extended hours and public assembly. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> when your asked by mr. murphy about a monetary settlement, did it occur to you, why don't we split what it would cost me to move my facilities? >> i had told him that there are well, we went and did the research. there are many things that could be triggered. the first thing was ventilation in our building. i have had while estimates on what that would cost, just for the ventilation. ii was getting estimates to cloe the windows. >> is the answer no?

>> no, none of this came from his side. i was expecting some kind of negotiation, what it was something less than 5 feet. maybe having him come back. >> is there more time? >> it is unfair to the other party for you to restate your case. >> no, we did not discuss going half on anything. >> thank you. >> where maybe we can hear from the permit holder now. >> i'm the property manager.

it is met with the appellant last thursday and i would like to say that there facts -- i was there and i would like to refute the facts. i have been a property owner six years now. for the last years, we have watched the appellants operate an illegal nightclub. in 2009, when they got their permit, the police department protested and objected because of crowds and noise but we never did. as neighbors, we have tried to be reasonable and we have never objected. as requested, we met the appellants last thursday. they requested $35,000 and a 5 foot setback for the building. the issue is not about gas meters, this is not about sprinklers, this is not about

gutter's, the real issue is that the appellants have an illegal building. on friday, i went down to the department of building inspections on the fourth floor. the approved plans show the windows on both sides. there currently operating a nightclub with 145 people. they got a certificate of occupancy with plans to show a one hour wall and no windows. the real purpose is to push back our building 5 feet so they don't have to comply with the plans that are currently on file. the sprinklers and gas are very very minor issues. this is 9 inches from the property line and the contractor

estimates it can be moved for less than a thousand dollars. this whole project barely makes economic sense. if we have to be pushed back, we will probably leave a vacant lot. we would request that you deny this appeal and allow us to move forward with our project. thank you. >> any department to comment? >> just to be clear on two items, i am not aware of any planning code enforcement issues or violations with the appellants property. they are within the industrial zoning district. >> is any public comment?

>> good evening. i want to thank you for giving me a chance to speak again. the gentleman that just spoke, we have never met him. these projects have never come up. this is a vacant lot and lots of dirt and lots of old cars. do old cars that are inanimate complain? they have been very good neighbors. there are no complaints. this has become superfluous.

they're trying to get issues that should have been brought up. why isn't mr. murphy coming up to speak before you? 99.9% of the previous appeals that i heard tonight, the responded usually speaks up. why all of a sudden now? i believe there is some racism involved. the thing is is that they talk professionally to each other. they put things in writing. they try to work things out. all of a sudden, we get accusations that have never been heard before. this is charles this behavior and this becomes a way of getting his back. we're not trying to put mr.

murphy out of business. there has been no code violations. the thing is that all this material should have been brought up before and now has become immaterial. i'm going to ask you what will they put in those storage facilities? they claim it is not hazardous. these are supposedly rented by the university of san francisco. i am concerned that the people that actually patronize or dance at this facility.

they have known his talents and the culture of this city. thank you. >> thank you. is any other public comment? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> is there a rating on the firewall and whether or not there should be windows?

>> this was in effect at the time. those windows in the exhibit could be original windows have been added after the fact. it is hard to say without looking at the original set of prints if they are available. there might have been a 10 foot requirement on the property lines. if this is within 5 feet of the property line, it does need to be a one hour wall.

this is the construction of the building and something we would not know until we look at the original documents. >> comments, commissioners? >> i would like to ask mr. zane a question. apparently on the basis of a conversation with pg&e, the meters can be moved for free. did you contact pg&e to

determine whether or not that was a factor? >> they did not like the word free. they would try to do the best they could and if there was a cost, could you refer that to mr. murphy. he said that if he moved it and they found problems that they would fix the problem but they would kill me for it. >> if they found problems. >> what is that old saying, trying to bring in the water? that one too much here.

the issue is still the permit, not the appellants building. what i was leaning towards is that there was a right to the developer to build up to this property line. i would expected based upon my comments that i felt that the windows were not part of the commissioners concerns. this then left not necessarily the utilities that ran across a significant portion of the building in terms of the drain

and meters which is where the sprinkler and gas valves were. there was a little bit of access that might have been part of that. maybe i was not as specific but i think what bothers me is the offensive nature of the response of the permit holder. and in our share that what i may or may not say in response to that. >> i agree with the commissioners about given the partisan opportunity to get together and try to work

something out and having it turn out this way which is off- putting, to say the least. i wrote a note to myself that commissioner continues the settlement negotiations and can potentially, did something with a setback. cuestas board runs into problems when we -- the permit holder, what he would like to do is of right. it puts the burden on the

appellant. we don't know what the spirit of negotiation is. i'm very disappointed that did not get together until last thursday. again, it should have been the appellant and if i were the appellant and this was the situation, i would have a record. i would have memorialized the fact that if you have not done it with telephone calls, and e- mail, please meet with me. the first would have gone out

immediately the next day. the continuous record of that i tried very hard to negotiate with the permit holder and it came to nothing. now we have he shall it -- he said, she said. this is obviously a poisonous relationship. i will be very reluctant to impose some reconsideration of the buildings or the permit holder given that unfortunately for the appellant, he is of the property line and it is the permit holders right to have the project that he has proposed. >> are there other comments or a motion? >> i think that everyone is struggling with the settlement negotiation but i am probably more inclined to agree with the

vice president garcia on this, unfortunately. i reckon my brain to see if there is a way to fix this that we would be making significant adjustments to a permit already granted and a project about which we know very little. i think that i would uphold the permit. >> is there a motion? >> i would move that we deny the appeal. >> if you could call the roll please. >> on the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> no. >> no,

>> no. >> absent four votes to overrule an absent another motion, this permit would be upheld by defaults >>. >> commissioners, do you need a break? should we take a break? >> go ahead and call the next item. >> ok, we will take a short break.

>> would impact to the meeting. we are going to move on to item -- welcome back to the meeting. we are going to move on to item no. 8, protesting the issuance on march 24, 2011 to john brennan, a permit to alter a building, a provision to bpa 2010/10/18/3214. >> i am the appellant. i think many of you will remember we had a hearing on march 16 that ran quite late. you heard quite a bit of feedback regarding a variety of

things relating to his particular permit and not for the proposed development of of steak. -- development. if we were following the law as written, we would be having a conditional use hearing. i want to point out three issues regarding the permit. this was amended on march 24. it required an notification for 30 days of would have allowed neighbors to request discretionary review. that's never happened. instead of moving forward, the resubmitted the new permits,

which is been -- being repealed. this movement to avoid a hearing should not be permitted. i am first asking that you rule to go through the process required of them in the first place. there is the permit and the notification for that. the second issue is the square footage requirement. i understand there are limitations as to what ncnb presented to you. we only acquired this when a neighbor actually filed a request. note it was incomplete. what that shows is that this

project is over 4000 square feet, which would trigger a hearing. i would submit that on behalf of this issue. based on the definitions, this was not briefed before. we believe there was an issue of total square footage proposed. finally, i want to touch on another primary issue, which is the retail law. if you would get the planning department's brief in response to our questions regarding the proper formulation of the retail

law, the only authorization we have received simply states this is incorrect. there is no letter of determination. there is no analysis. the only analysis is provided by the permit holder. given the fact we are protesting, it is interesting and now the only one is by the permit holder. it makes no sense how the current retail loughner -- law is being interpreted by the zoning administrator. i do not know if you can see this on the overhead. it is defined to include the

following uses -- of favre, a drive of facility, a liquor store -- bar, drive up facility, a liquor store, sales and service, a movie theater, take- out food. what is interesting is dead because financial services is not listed, -- is that because financial-services is not listed, it is rove vote. it is an and the category that does not -- and m c category that does not exist. -- empty category that does not exist. the way to do it is not to have

it listed. back when this was drafted, we have heard banks lobbied hard to have this exempted. it makes almost no sense to have sales and services listed if it is a category with no potential uses in it. that is the argument put forward by the planning department, because public services have not been pulled out of the general category it sits in but is otherwise listed, apparently it is exempt, so we are asking for your help in having the city and county follow the rules.