requirement in vernal. vernal does not allow averaging four rh-2 and rh-3, so it is more restrictive. had theythe bungalow is non-com, but it is also illegal use. >> that is correct. >> therefore, there were no planning entitlements outside the project review done by your department. >> that is true. have there been a subdivision and a development, it would have required a very inferior -- have required its. goo>> are there any nsrs on the

lot? >> i am not aware of any. >> i am confused by the answer you gave. it seems the question was is the process as simple or difficult as the various processes they are now going through? i am understanding there is a lottery that is considerably longer. >> no. i am estimating in terms of cost and time, but in terms of the actual process -- this is not

subject to a lottery, because it is exempt from the lottery. i believe they have requirements to be eligible to retire all they have to do is apply. there is no waiting list for this property. the various process is a much more cumbersome process to go through in that you have to meet the findings of hardship. for the condo process, you are going through and just doing a separate lots. you are not subdividing and actually doing separate lots in that fashion. it is straight forward. had it command at the same time as this, it would have been completed by now. hopefully that clarifies my response triggered -- my

response. >> if they were to do the sections of the code, it would not deter them? >> they would not needed. >> i have a couple of questions. if a lot were to be split, with each new small-lot peace -- be rh2. >> that is correct. >> sometimes cases go down to the neighborhood design review boards. would they go there? >> i would think not, because those types of discussions only happen when there is construction. goowe did not find out there wod

be a negative impact. however, we are looking at a plan overall and trying to protect those. >> the you know if the property is within the jurisdiction of the boards? >> i do not have that information. >> thank you president -- thank you. president goh mention that the zoning would remain rh2. is any modification of zoning ever done? >> no, if it does not change. it will forever be until there is a zoning change, and it would

otherwise allow two dwelling units. >> if it were to be split, would they still meet the requirements, or would they try to double it? would it continue to me that? >> the proposal would meet the parking requirements. that is my understanding. the variance was not for parking. the variance was for the rear yard space. >> they said they have three parking spaces. >> i think it is the same as that case, the parking in the new building and not involve old building. the you know the dates of the place across the street? >> i do not know. i can take a look at my ipad and

see if i can find it. >> it is different, because both buildings have sparking a. >> is there any public comment on this item? rebuttals comes after public comment. >> i am an architect, but i am here as a friend and neighbor of the appellants, and before i speak about this appeal, i want to talk about the context stereo -- the context. it is a unique area. we have a specific planning code. we have small homes and small

lots and narrow streets. the typical lot size where i live is 25 by 70. that is 1750 square feet, and that is the size of most floor plans in other neighborhoods, so we already have small lots, and we have many substandard sell- offs -- lots in the neighborhood, so the map i want to show you is this one, and this is the property, and you can see the subject property. there is the property across the street, and there is another property here, so what is compelling to mae is this

demonstrate they allowed the property owner to slip a lot, and it has been my observation -- to split the lot, and it has been my observation you grant the same rights to everyone equally, and i think this is compelling, that they are sandwiched between two properties. the end result -- the other thing that is a difference is that all the neighbors support this. and i am running out of time, so i want to say, i do not know if you have a chance to look at this, and the appellant did not hire a consultant. they did not submit this, and i think this is very compelling, so i think it's got sanchez had a chance to review this, -- if

scott sanchez had a chance to review this, maybe he would have a different opinion. there is going to be minor construction. all the neighbors support office, and i think this is a great example. you should give them the same property ricghts, so thank you very much. >> next speaker. reaction my name is a and caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street. i am directly -- >> my name is anne caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street.

i just want to present my voice to the board and say i have no objection to this, and the consensus within my household and with my other neighbors is also that we have no objection to the slot being split, and i would ask the board please -- to the lot being split, and i would ask the board to please grant what they request. >> x speaker please. -- next speaker please. >> i live directly across from jack and vicki, and my lot is actually 23 by 70, and i am between a two other parcels that are actually double costs -- double loss, and i have no objection to having them split, and getting the conflict resolved in a timely manner.

>> any other public comment spam of seeing none, we will move to revive phone -- any other public comments? seeing none, we will move to rebuttal. >> with regard to the option of condominiums, it is $30,000, and it takes two years. condominium loans are harder to get. the prices you can get for selling a condo are lower, and you could have a permanent legal entanglements between the homes that share no common properties and gives homeowners legal rights. we also feel it is not the appropriate designation, and whatever decision you make does

not make a difference with what happens to the structure. we feel the most important is a lot split. the smallest 863 square feet. ours is a 1100. there was no rear yard. there was no parking. both of our homes have parking. in that neighborhood, there were three lots less than 1000 square feet within a quarter mile. in our case, there are 22. it is a different neighborhood common -- it is a different neighborhood. also, we did submit this to the neighborhood associations and received no negative comments at a time of the building of the house and now for the lot split. i know what you are charged with

is doing a balancing act, which is weighing the hardships for property owners against any public harmo to the community, and there is no public harm to the community, and it seems commonsensical, so we would ask that you find that balance. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, and in response to the information, the property across the street -- it does not appear those were subdivided recently. those buildings were built

previously. the building in front was built in 1930, both prior to the lot size requirements. the building on the north side of the lot was built between 188 the aunt 1907. that is the information i found -- 1880 and 1907. they have done a good job of differentiating this, and also a stablishing there is neighborhood support for this. the department cannot just make a decision based on the fact there is neighborhood support. we have to look at the impact of the general plan, and i think issue is the similarity between the two, and that is a fair result large building developed. -- that is there was a large building developed. have there been a subdivision,

that would have resulted in a smaller building. had the front building been smaller, had it been closer to being a code-compliant in terms of the rear yard, it would have been more justifiable, but a concern i have is that we have a property that has expanded the development potential and then once to gain another benefit of doing the subdivision after. -- and wants to gain another benefit of during the subdivision after. i am available for any questions. >> would you agree that the appellants did of predicted job -- a pretty good job of condo conversion? >> i disagree, because this is the process available to san franciscans. anybody with a two-unit building in one building, they have to go

through the process. it is a fair process, and i see no reason why they cannot go through that. >> i am not being argumentative, but in terms of the effect they would have in terms of being able to get a loan, in terms of someone new, and there would have to be agreement as to how to paint and building, it is not actually comparable. >> i would agree the benefits of the owner are greater for what they are seeking. >> the other question i would have -- it would mean we would protect future density. >> the board could limit the development potential of other

property to no more than a single family dwelling. >> how would you limit it in terms of building expansion? >> the board could place a condition that there be no further expansion. they could still apply for a variance, but ultimately, the matter would have to come back to the sword to change any conditions. good -- to this board to change any conditions. >> hair is the matter submitted. >> i will start. i know we are often opposed to variants, but i think there is a striking reason to grant it. i know one of the findings was extraordinary circumstances she modified, but i think the

ownership is essentially the american dream, and we would be a entangling these folks forever. i think we have heard from members of the public that this could fit within the neighborhood, so i would very much support this application for the very and superior -- for the variants. >> i have a couple of disclosures. one is that i have known him for many years and did hear from him before the case, and he asked, can i talk to you? i said, no, and so he wrote a letter we all received in our pocket. the other thing is i am a neighbor. i am not close to the propertiey, and the third is tht i sat on the review board before i was appointed to this

commission, and it was a board that did not cover this area, so i do not have a conflict there very good i am going to respectfully disagree with -- have a conflict there. i am going to respectfully disagree. it is important to know that our standard of review is abusive discretion, and i do not find a abuse of discretion. i find compelling the 1998 dwelling of the property as maximizing the potential in that if the split had happened before that, the new building would be a lot smaller, so to build a new bid building -- big building

and choosing to build it as a second building and asking for a split, i do not find compelling. i find troubling the vote of the small new lots would-be -- that both of the small new lot of would-b -- new lots would be rf. we heard those were waved a former reagan in 1994 are planning code -- they were before our planning code. i was looking of the findings. even if we were inclined to overturn it, we would have to find all five requirements met, and i do not think that is possible. those are my comments for now. >> i would agree that the

development code can show -- development potential of this particular lot has been met. the question islais whether thet split with a couple of conditions -- one is no increase in density -- if there was an acceptable position for this board and for property owners, the lot slick has very little -- lot split has very little benefit in terms of how it is handled. i would support that condition vire.

i would agree but the building built in the 2000 tehran region in -- era max down the slide triggered by would support -- era maxed out. >> many of the statements made b y president goh also resonate with me, especially the -- i don't know if that wa s a failure to consider a lot split prior to construction, or if that was considered at all.

the maximum use was evidence it was built to its full potential, rather than more modest. never having done a condo conversion, it is useful to hear that on both sides of tehe issue. it probably does carry greater home value, so i don't know what offsets what. being more new than president goh, i am aware of the small lot

issue, and i am sympathetic in that regard. i am not sure where i am going to land. it is pretty mixed. >> were we to overturn it, we would have to find discretion, and the other way to overturn it is to have error, and there is the fact that it is not the predominant element of that neighborhood, but they do exist. one thing that is very similar with the pennsylvania thing is that if you ride by their

tonight and it is not a split lot and we allowed it to be a split lot, you would not know the difference. another consideration would be the fact that a large building was built in 2000. the economy was very different theory of we do not actually know why they chose to go that route -- the economy was very different. we do not actually know why they chose that route. have been serious changes in terms of the ability to get a loan and the value. the segment of the real-estate market has been hit hardest are condominiums, and i think it could case was presented as to why that is not an equal option or even reasonable. the difference between this and the case in pennsylvania was

there was a parking there, and more importantly, there was serious opposition to it. it was a feeling that someone sought to gain the system. i do not take anyone thinks that is going on here, and when i read this i was hoping someone would talk me out of fitten -- out of its, but a statement made by one of the appellants have really resonated with me was that what we are supposed to do of here is to seek a balance and not do violation to the code and make sure what we do does no harm to the community, and i do not know how we could demonstrate any harm to that community, and we could see how there are great benefits to be had by the appellant, and were we to allow it.

i feel we should overturn the denial with findings to be written later, having not to do with abuse and discretion but having a different feeling. >> would you condition it? >> absolutely. thank you for bringing that up. it had to do with enlarging the envelope so as not to have that great an impact. >> i think vice president garcia, if you could be more specific, but would be helpful.

>> it would stay the density would have to remain as it is now. it is the reasonable way to state that? >> if i may suggest language, it is that both properties be limited to single family dwellings and that there be no future expansion without variants. >> how about the envelope. >> i think he is talking about expansion. >> both properties would be limited to single family dwellings. >> would that be in perpetuity? >> until this sort or another board would ensue if it's. -- this board or another board would undo it. i would not overturn that, and if they did come in for an

application, we would deny it, and they would have to come appeal to you why the condition would have to be removed. >> we would not be sitting on the board. greg >> may be pure give some people are here for a long time. -- maybe. some people would be her for a long time. >> i would like to ask the appellants if that is something they would be willing to a except -- to accept. >> i would accept that condition. >> i am just clarifying your motion. you would be adopting findings, and those findings would include a determination of the error