it is totally based upon set backs and it is in terms of the over all building envelope. and the height limit. the problem that we have had in the number of cases, is where, what is being proposed exceeds what looks to be a reasonable proportion and a reasonable envelope and i feel that is the case here. and the issue that i made in one of the previous cases was, you know, putting 50 pounds and 20 pound sack is not quite there here, but, it is approaching it. and a lot of that has to do with the relatively thin dimension width of the lot. this is not a new field

situation where there are adjacent either three or four story buildings where the nature of what is being proposed would fit in very well. so at this point, i do have an issue with respect to the over all volume that is the subject of this permit. >> i would concur with that. i think that it is as a visual, and the concerns raised by some of the neighbors. >> it does not seem to fit here. >> i also don't feel the same concern as the appellants with respect to the public view. i think that while i would not say that i don't get it, i mean i get it, but it is just not as compelling as some of the other issues.

>> i guess that i feel the opposite that i don't feel that it is out of proportion and i think that it is a beautiful building and obviously well done. i guess that i feel differently than the fellow commissioners. >> i would concur with commissioner hurtado. >> i am kind of stuck in the middle here, but i am just recently, we granted or denied the appeal of a very large contemporary building with homes that were of an older nature. but, those were potential historic resources, whereas this is really a validated historic landmark. and although i that i think that the variety is the spice of life d i

particular structure as it stands definitely benefits the block in comparison to the structure that was previously there. on the other hand, noting that the width of the property, and by going up a story, you know, the grand old lady has been sitting there since the early 1900s and i think that this is san francisco and you are going to take a little bit away from that and i am not saying that the contemporary that the victor an should win. but at this point my feeling is that victor an has been there for a long time and by putting on that third story you are going to take away from the block. and like i said i, you guys did well and i commend that and the green roof and all of stuft that you have done and i think

that although i have never been in your home, i would love to be there for a party. but in this particular case, i am leaning towards commission fung and our president in up holding the appeal? >> granting the appeal. >> i want to entertain a motion if anyone has one? >> i would move to grant the

appeal, condition the permit that further set backs occur both in the front and the back. >> front and back? >> and back >> that would then, that would condition the permit on, i mean that is... going to make even like a little more narrow. >> i see, both in the front and in the back. >> commissioner fung, do you want to specify the agree of set back? or do you want to see if you have the votes? >> let's see how the votes go and otherwise it is necessary to bring it back. >> are you talking, in the terms of the front set back, are you thinking the four feet, that suggested by the appellant? >> i would say in that range that makes it 7 feet which

reduces the visibility from the front and in the back verses seeing four stories to seeing and a partial. >> okay. >> we have a motion then? commissioner fung? >> to grant the appeal and up hold the permit with the condition that there be further set backs at the front and back. >> just to be clear, if that motion passes we would need an additional motion to specify what the set backs will be. >> okay. >> on that motion, president fung? >> aye. >> hurtado. >> no. >> lazarus. >> no. >> and commissioner honda. >> no. >> the vote is 3-2, and the city charter requires four out of five votes to over turn or modify any departmental action, so unless there is another motion, this permit would be upheld as is by default.

what if we just set back the front? >> i mean, you know, i don't see additional reason to set back the rear. and i think that they have made an agreement to put shades and luvers so they don't have to watch the same tv and the concern here is that you know, i don't know. that would be >> do you want to make that motion? >> do i want to make that motion? >> i make a motion that we grant the appeal, up hold the permit on the condition that the front be set back. initially, ye got an extra 3 foot and 7 inches in the beginning and got that on both floors on the existing structure as it stands now. so if they lose a little bit on the top, to kind of make things even, that...

>> quiet. >> so is that the amount that you want to specify? 3 feet 8 inches? >> i think that is what they are saying is correct. the first time when they added the addition on top there is an over hang and the building was a little bit behind the over hang. this proposal that came through the dr moved that top floor another three feet from there. >> i am talking about the existing building that is currently there and as per as the original site plan that had an error of 3 foot and 8 inches. >> i am saying that we are evidently can't move that building back, right? and that comes more forward taking the victor an, right?

>> and do you want to say something scott? >> in terms of ther errors, because of the site plan, so on the 601 side, on the 601ing, the site plan showed the building to be further forward, i think that was probably about three foot and 8 inches and then on the 615, the site plan actually had that building further back by a couple of inches, i think that it was. >> in your opinion, what is or what was the benefit to the actual permit holders at this point square footage wise? >> a foot and a half. it would not be three feet. we used the averaging, because it is not just the building at 601 goes back and 3 foot and 8 inches more and the front set back for the subject property moves back 3.8 inches more and it is averaged against the two and the other building moved forward a little bit on the adjusted site plans and so i think that over all, i think that the discrepancy was less

than two feet and more than a foot, probably about a foot half. >> 16 inches. >> i think that was the discrepancy. >> helpful for the clarification, thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> i need the help from somebody at this point. >> are you saying something that the condition would be to then move it back another three feet? >> after hearing what mr. sanchez says and what was not supposed to be heard over there, you know we are talking about 16 inches. right? >> well the appellant suggested four feet. >> right. >> any help from the architect of the house? >> you are out of order. >> does anybody else want to make a motion? >> well, i think that we are in the middle of an attempted motion but the question is how far set back?>> do you want to

all parties. >> if you take it back the four feet, if you want to do it on the same type of... >> evidently i was not there ten years ago and it looks like there was some type of agreement that was made and they out weighed the people that were there and it is not that i don't want people to build but there is a queen anne victor an on the left that there should be some consideration. right? i mean, so, i just need help like i said, if it is 16 inches on one side, and you know, i want to make a motion, and i don't know what the amount of the set back that i would additional that i would make a motion to. well, if your motion is to simply put a front set back,

condition the permit by having it set back further, but leave the back alone. >> given accommodations that are going to be made for the light issue, i would i guess, suggest a froendly amendment to set it back four feet. >> i want to talk to the commissioners to the right of me. is anyone in agreement? agreement to any type of a set back on the front? not in the back? >> honestly no, i would not support that motion. >> vice president lazarus? >> i still with commission hurtado. >> so, you know, at this point, unless, we don't have the votes to go forward, so there is no sense in making that motion. correct. >> okay. >> i withdraw that motion. >> okay. >> okay. >> so. commissioner honda's motion is withdrawn, unless there is another motion. >> hold on, i think that there are the da wants to say

something. >> scott sanchez from the planning department. i want to clarify from the project in 2002, 2003. the addition from the rear remodel there was a minor infill under the existing over hang at the time but there was no built out to the front or addition at the front, just to make sure that the board is not under the belief that they had an incorrect site plan from 2002 that allowed them to build a couple of feet oit further to the front. just want to make that clear. >> you are just a bundle of good news. >> thank you. >> okay. so commissioner honda's motion is withdrawn. so the only vote made was to agree to up hold the permit with those conditions. and absence four votes and another motion, again, this permit is upheld as is, no new

conditions. >> okay. >> all right. president hwang, do you want me to call next item. >> let's take a short break, we will be back at 7:00. 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 you 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 more time. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, the subject 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 legal 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

so, unless 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