welcome back. we are calling item 6, muva

verses the department of building, 669 san jose avenue, the issuance on all 30, 2012, of the permit to alter a building, 201077532, to remove illegal unit at ground floor rear garage and we will start with the appellant. please step forward. >> you have seven minutes. >> and good evening, my name is (inaudible) and i am the owner and for the building at 669, san jose avenue. and when we bought the property in october of 66, the apartment was already there and we just, it was there, and so i have been living there for over 35, 40 years. and my, my son right now, he is

disabled and he is leaving there. but the apartment was there, but i would like to keep it, my son cannot work and cannot afford to go anywhere else. and so i don't see why, you know... >> are you finished? >> yeah. i am really here because i really, you know, it needs to keep the apartment there. >> and when we bought it, we did not know that we have, or that it was an illegal and that they bought it at that time, they didn't know and so now that i am trying to make it legal. and plus, that my son is disabled and he cannot work and, so he can't afford to go anywhere else. >> okay. do you have, or how long has your son lived there? >> the last four and a half

years. >> yeah. >> are you aware of what you are allowed to do there? >> if i was aware of excuse me what? >> i mean, your son is allowed to live there, the question is whether it is an independent unit. >> when we bought the property it was there, so we didn't know if it was... >> let's back up a little bit. if that unit has no kitchen, and you can have a wet bar. yeah. >> you can have a bathroom, maybe we would have to see whether it has a full bath or shower. i mean, as long as it is for code, and somebody could, in your family could live there. >> well, as i said the room was

there, the apartment was there, and the toilet and the shower. >> and the kitchen is there too. >> right now, it is. yes it is. >> i think that more than likely our questions will be more geared toward the building inspection and the zoning administrator. so do you understand what commissioner fung was saying? that there is nothing illegal about having your son live there. it is just making sure that the space is code compliant to meet the current standards such as height requirements light and air and no matter what, more than likely as commissioner fung stated that stove indicating a third unit is not legal, but potentially a wet bar is. so more than likely, we will ask the building inspection department to tell us what is there and if it is possible. >> okay? >> but may i add that u would

like to do or you would hope to do what you need to make it a legal unit if that is possible. >> exactly. >> right. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, or mr. duffy? >> i am sorry. >> there is still more time. yeah. >> we are out of time? >> okay. >> my jay brown the project designer actually. and to answer any building code questions, i surveyed the property. and as far as i can see, it meets all of the requirements for the code compliant height, ceiling height and light and ventilation and also the meets of regress and if you have more

questions i would be more than happy to answer them for you. >> tell us what is there now. >> right now you have a full bathroom, a kitchen, and a studio apartment, basically is what it is. it has the only means of you know, you can go to the side yard access and so you don't have to go through the building or the garage to get to it. >> and is the kitchen gas or is the stove gas? >> it is a gas stove. yes, it is a gas stove. right. with a sink and a full bathroom. >> okay. >> sorry, i think that what we are probably going for do is if those guys... >> yes, and then we may have potential questions for you after. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> do you want to ask the questions or will i just... i can give you a little bit of a... i think that this was up before and maybe a continuance sort of a request or we

definitely spoke to this jurisdiction request and i think that at the last time that we spoke about it, we did not know enough details as to what would make this a legal unit but i think that mr. brown is now on board and that they called or applied for a building permit to legalize this to try to make a second unit in this building, if the zoning allowed it and mr. sanchez can speak to that and certainly if they meet the requirements for a living, or a dwelling unit, they can certainly apply for the building permit to do that. the permit that is in here at today is to remove the illegal unit at the ground floor, have you been inside the unit mr. duffy. >> no that did not happen before tonight's hearing and i think that we talked about it last time and i am willing to work with mr. brian to figure out what needs to be done plan wise and all of the code issues. >> okay. >> he is experienced with these

type of permits and if he has been there and looked at it, i don't know if i need to go there as much as if he presented the permit to the building department to use it as a legalized unit and we have seen these type of permits before and as commissioner fung said that the code still legalized the ground floor as without a cooking facility. >> so... and novs from housing. it is actually from dbi and 2010, it is very fair and it just says to the permits and it does not apply with the building permit and to remove the studio and it is not very detailed. and so we might need the subjec

property at 669 san jose avenue is located in an rh 2 zoning district, based on the records there are two existing legal dwelling units and given that it is rh 2 they could not add a third unit and however, as they noted they could do the brooms on the ground floor and accessory rooms that are inhabitible that they will be able to remain and live there and it will not be a full dwelling unit and have to remove the cooking facilities and that is actually the matrix of what you can see on the ground floor depending on the access that you have to the street and the floor above and so it is possible that the full bath would be there, as to the access to the street and there are possibilities and they could pull a building permit application to legalize some of the ground floor work, but they

could not have a third dwelling unit in it. >> so for my information they could have you know habit able rooms down just no kitchen? >> they could not have cooking facilities depending on the levels to the access to the street and the floor before. they may be able to have a wet bar and a full bath in addition to the laundry facilities. >> so just for my information, the structures already existing, what would they open the walls to it.

>> is there any other comments? >> seeing none, do you have any further to say? >> i am her son, and i have been there and grow up all of my life and born there, my brother is disabled and had two strokes and he is living there right now. if you guys and if it is not a legal apartment, if it can't make it a legal apartment, they move the kitchen, then there is no use for him being there. and he can't afford to go anywhere else. so we really like to make it, you know, an apartment for him so he can stay there. my grand parents bought it and it is all at the studio. >> why can't he live there without the kitchen if he is in

the home? >> he can't afford to go anywhere else? >> the rest of family does not live in that space? >> no. >> the other two units are rented out. >> oh, that is helpful. >> this is the only place for him. especially after his stroke. and you know, he does not work and he can't really do much. you know? and he is still able and he is able to cook, clean, take care of himself, and you know we over see him and you know, we take turns going back and forth and making sure that he is okay. but as far as him living somewhere else and affording it, that does not work. i see. >> so. >> now the option is at this point, that he could have a wet bar which would have a sink and it would have a sink, a fridge and a microwave just not a stove. >> how is he going to cook without him cooking and stuff? >> it would be bet forehim to have a full access as an apartment. >> you know? for his benefit. >> and in other words,

otherwise we would be back and forth, back and forth more times and you know, invade on his privacy that he can't cook because that is what he likes to do is cook, he is a good cook. so a mike wave is not going to cut it for him. >> the problem is if you understand what the mr. sanchez and the zoning administrator said? >> i know. but at one point you guys in the last meet thating we were here at one point it said that during i think that it was 71 to 73, if we knew about it, we could have made that legal. an apartment could have been legal at one point and it was stated in the records. so if we knew about that, then we would have went through the process with the city and made it legal. so we didn't know that. >> did you know the city... we didn't tell you that either on top of it. >> so, okay. >> we are pleading with you guys, hopefully to try to make it complete. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> i think that there might be questions for you. >> i am not sure mr. duffy i am not sure. >> before you start mr. sanchez, i hope that you are looking up what the site area is? >> thank you. >> another question for mr. duffy? just one thing that i would say, i am sorry that i had just for some reason that i had a single family, but the two units going to the third is also a change of occupancy under the building code, it is dowable but harder to do it from three to three units changes the occupantcy to an r2:singer. sprinklers kick in and stuff like that, it is more severe to add this unit. >> as a legal unit. >> yeah. >> but your suggestion about the rooms down with the weted bar is a good and people do that and it seems to work well.

in these type of buildings. so >> is there an interior access to the... if it is like a inlaw type of rooms down, is there an interior access to the units? because it is two units and it is two additional units occupied, is there a connection between the lower floor unit and the ground floor? >> that we are aware of? >> i have not been there but it does not sound like it? it sounds like they said that the studio was totally independent. so how could that be? if it is not its own? >> there might be a light, but in the middle of the stairwell, and in the middle of the building in the breezeway and then in the studio. >> and the access from the sides. >> okay. >> and from the sides and behind the garage. >> okay. >> not the front door. >> yeah. the trades man entrance on the side? >> yeah. >> okay. >> for the garage. >> it seems like it is at the rear of the garage and i think that is where it is. >> i see.

>> thank you. >> the garage. but just as well, the notice of violation has gone through the enforcement department pretty much as far as it can go and there is an order of abatement issued and so unless it is entered into the city attorney's office that is not going anywhere in our department. we have done everything and we have order ited and got posted in december of 2012, which is so, unless we sent it over to the abatement and the board which we typically wouldn't on this type, i believe, there is quite a backlog for that. >> so you said earlier that you would be willing to work with theirs? >> absolutely. i am sure that he understands. >> yes. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planninging, it is 2169 square feet and so it is smaller than the typical lot which would be 2500 square feet

and there is a provision in the rhg zoning where if you have a large lot size you can increase the number of units but this is the smaller of the standard size, so but not qualify, and actually would not, it is a substandard lot and yeah, it is so they would not be able to have any dwelling units under the code available for any questions? >> assume that there is no provisions to accommodate people with disabilities in these? >> the provisions to accommodate people with disabilities does not allow for the zoning to be changed for a property and we could make reasonable accommodations in terms of set backs for facilities but in terms of changing the zoning and what the general plan sets should be, the density for the zoning district, we don't have that ability in my understanding from the conversations of the city attorney's office that don't have that ability to

violate the zoning in that way in order to accommodation. >> so we are really constrained to the zoning? >> yes, i believe so. i mean, that certainly there are things that could be done on the ground floor but to have it be spaced that is habitable and not a separate dwelling unit that is considered the dwelling unit under the planning code. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> one last question, mr. sanchez. this district is predominantly rh 2? >> and so when you go to the south the 29th