rather than one with formeur, unless it burns down and you replace it with three? being able to split it illegally just because you can does not sound like it makes any sense to me, and is just because the planning department has the vehicles to be able to split into two lots. if they were going to make some changes that would provide more open space, i might understand, but nothing is going to change except the legality of this property and make it a code- conforming.

one is 960 square foot. neither of those would be illegal, -- would be legal. the property line division is accommodating existing conditions, vetoes it has to circumvent existing stairs. you do not have a clean cut all the way across. it seems like we are working awfully hard to split this lot, not to conform with the code, when we should always have in mind that we want it conforms to the code, and it is not up to the planning department to make it illegal in that way.

it would be preferable soo to ge them their variances if they want. why force an additional one? thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening. the owners of the property, and the respondents live a block from the property. like the appeals of many permits before you, various appeals. now the board can over turn only if they have abused

discretion. the appellant makes no such case. mr. malek provides no evidence any errors were made by the zoning administrator, and he makes no argument but abuse or indiscretion occurred. with the zoning district allows three units, this is legal- nonconformity. most parcels are less dense and contain one or two family homes. this one is difficult to finance or to sell at a price reflecting its true value. more stringent lending rules are in place and reduce the pool of qualified buyers.

this is not attributable to the owners. i want to point out a of building was moved there in 1949 from a lot condemned on vermont street to make way for the 101 freeway. it predated the requirements currently required, so the owners but applied for this says variances do not meet requirements for lot size, and the property line also triggers some technical variances for rear yard and usable open space. these conditions meet on the lot. goonote timely appellants in brf was submitted, but he mentioned three bullet points but we address in our response.

apparently the appellant is no longer concerned about two of those points. the remaining is rent- controlled issues. most rental units in buildings constructed before june 13 are restricted by the san francisco ordinance. that restriction would still apply to this property, whether it is two buildings on two lots with or without a lot split. it is always the building owner's choice to be a landlord or not. what determines whether these units would remain under rent control is the owners' decision to rent them. the granting of issuance is immaterial to this issue. there is no legal bases to overturn the decision, and we

respectfully ask the board to overturn the request. now she will use the remainder of our time, and the project architect and i are here to answer any questions should you have them. thank you. >> good evening, president garcia end commissioners. i am the owner of the building, and i would like to tell you why we applied for these variances. we are experiencing financial hardship. and we need to sell the property to recover expenses. it is extremely difficult if not impossible to sell the property without taking a loss on the money we've put into it. we did try to sell a, but we

have absolutely no luck. we could maybe sell the back building and keep the front building as is, and if we were able to obtain the front building, that would keep two rental units on the market while making units available in the reader. there is a lovely courtyard between the building's. this provides a natural way to divide it into two lots. the division would not have a negative affect on the district, and we are mystified 90 opposes it. prior to the september meeting, and within a minute, he said he

knew exactly what we were during which was he thought we were doing a condo diverged -- condo division. he said he knew all about it because he was trying to do that. he jumped to a conclusion that was not part of our plan at all. we out for specific objections, and he said they object to all lot split squad but he did not give any particular reason in our case. i am curious because in october he said he had not presented a this at the monthly meeting. we do ask that you consider this so we can put a please part of the property on the market so we can begin to recover from

the setback this economy has caused us. >> when did you purchase this property? >> 2003. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> just to recap, is a variant application for lot sizes, and the lot size affects both of the properties with respect to the code. it would take a standard lot, which has one building in the front, one building of the reader. the building at the front appears to be constructed in 1926. of a permit indicates it was removed to the subject property,

and this appears to have been done to accommodate a widening of the freeway, and the proposal would create two smaller lots. one would be 38 inches by 25 feet. it is located in our zoning district which would permit three dwelling units per lot. when the application was first presented to our department and staff presented it to me, my reaction was very negative. i do have concerns about a lot size subdivisions. one this board overturned in the summer, but in taking into account the application asked to

provide additional information, and when we found this really building had been removed in order to accommodate the widening of the freeway, and to me that now established circumstances necessary. i had concerns because there is not a widespread pattern of lots. there are only four, but i felt a fact of we had the state's taking action of moving the building to this location, it was non-conforming, the doing the subdivision was appropriate, and variants could be granted, so i found that compelling. we did get concerns from neighbors expressing concern of

the buildings may be expanded, so i took that into consideration and appreciated those concerns, and we did have a condition that prohibits expansion of the building. i believe this is a fair decision, and they are adequate to protect the community. i think the conditions adequately protects those concerns. briefly on the subdivision issue and the question of condominium conversion, right now they would be subject to the requirements. on the second what they would still be subject to requirements unless each of the unit is owner occupied. now is is owner-occupied you are exempt from the process. i understand concern about rent- controlled, but i see maybe it

is less of a concern. gooit is my understanding rent control would be in effect. i felt conditions were adequate to address those. that is my presentation. i will answer any questions the board may have. >> how many parking spots are available in each of the buildings? >> i believe there are two. >> do not do that, unless you are asked to address. >> there are two in the front building which require front parking in the building. there is no parking in the back. it is an existing condition. have there been three parking spaces in the front and for the two units, they would require the parking variance, because we

would assume one of those would be provided for the building in the rear, and there would be of parking variants. >> i do not understand why you would not need a parking variance, because you would be dividing it and creating what is now an existing non-complying end of the building a. -- in the building. >> it is currently not complying, and it will still be, so there is no change. the variant would have been required hide their been parking required. have there been three parking spaces provided in the front, we would assume two were for the front and one is for the rear. separating that would have triggered a parking variance for

the rear building. >> i understood your argument. >> part a talks about the fact you cannot have physical expansion in the molding area. would that include fences? would that be barred gunma? -- be barred? >> it would be allowed. it would allow a sense of to 10 feet in height on the property lines. >> the property is a very small building. the units would be very small. you have any idea of the size

of? >> i do not have the square footage. i can look at that. >> were these and buildings always there? >> i would need to do additional research to confirm that. >> is there any public comment? you have three minutes. the tracks i did not have any rebuttal except splitting the lot into two pieces.

all of these are going to be the same, so they can hold the property without any problem at all. there is no hardship created. this is what condo conversions are all about. they try to make it difficult if they care and. -- if they can. they want to protect old housing stock. old housing stock is so close -- is supposed to protect rentals.

if they want to legalize the pro that, but they added a new one, and that cuts it in half. they even talked about appropriate property values, so they are saying is worth less. that is what the zoning administrator said. i know about condo conversions, because i have done one, and i know you can put in a phone line and pay the electric bill, and you are an owner and then apply to the lottery, and you wait a while if you can afford that. it does eliminate the old housing stock the city has rules

to protect. we want to protect standard size and what practices -- standard size lot practices. i know they have the power, but i think they should reflect the planning code more. >> the issue has been raised about whether or not this project is going forward. >> yes, they came to one of our meetings. one time they did nothey caughts setting up for the meeting. they tried to talk to me for a while, and i said, i do not want to talk euayou.

the only correspondence i had was for the planning department your good we were against this. >> the answer is yes? >> the executive committee. >> when it went before this committee, was the appellant invited to address the issue? >> no. >> thank you. >> actually splitting the loss makes housing more affordable, more accessible to people looking for small rentals or a starter home. it does not make any physical problems worse. to answer the question about the size, both rear unanimouits aret 500 square feet. they are very small. i think that is all i have

unless the commission has any questions. g>> i guess it was not quite clear, but it is two stories in the rear and to stories in front? >> that is correct. >> the front unit, which is a little larger, house of parkinge smaller? >> it is two units, two floors over the garage. it is a slight of slope, so the garage may qualify as the basement. >> what about the reader? >> it is two nearly identical units. >> mr. sanchez. >> just one point to address the question about the history of

the building, it appears when they were out of previous location it was a single family, and the permit was to move the property to the reader. when they got their cfc in 1950, it shows two flat. it appears the second unit was added later based on the record. >> the frog was always two units? >> as far as i can tell. the property -- the lot and was always two units? >> as far as i can tell. >> i actually agree with the appellant in this case.

i think there are several requirements and were not met. i do not see any hardships. there are five of the monroe, and the fact there is not a widespread pattern of smaller lots, the only smaller lots nbwe see are oddly shaped but not necessarily the tiny losts the subdivision would create. i see parking as a problem. i did not agree with the explanation 7 and non-complying in the rear would be it sufficient or desirable outcome. those are my comments for now.

>> i am a little bit in between. let me explain why. we have had two cases like this in the last two years. each had a slightly larger unit in one lot and a small unit on the other a lot. both have significant departures for lot size, and iun financing of for your unix -- financing four units, and i concur that given the size of the units, they are probably more affordable than the larger

units, which have some fairly large buildings, given the fact there is still a multiplier that applies in volume -- applies value. the question that makes me sway in between is while studying the fact the building was moved through a state action and the fact that it is difficult to finance is that the rear property has no parking. when we had these other cases, and i am trying to decide whether i want to be consistent or not, the one i voted for also have rear parking. the front building was massive,

so in my opinion it was over- untitled. give me another moment. >> i appreciate the comments. gooi am slightly torn in my feelings, and the reasons being part of both challenges, and planning looked carefully at the situation, and given the constraints going forward, it does bother me there is no parking, but i think issue the house got moved there as well,

someone in voluntarily is also an important factor, so that is where my leanings are at this point. >> i am of a firm mind on this one. is it legitimate to open this up? i think it is extraordinary the building had been moved to this lot when it was legal to do so. i think this means that standard, so it was legal. when i look at this, this is a different point of view. is it a hardship? i felt like absolutely there was a hard shove, and the idea you would dismiss these factors,

there are differential rules, so therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, and i would make the same point if one were to drive by tomorrow, you would not know the difference. it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on neighborhood character or those types of issues. it is hard to keep track on what the regulations are currently. we talked about requirements for loans. if this were to be built today, i do not know if i would know

what though parking requirements would be. it seems like it is a moving requirement. it didfar this property was froe transit lines and all of that. i would assume it is not bad. that does not bother me. i feel like there is no demonstration of abuse or error on the part of the zoning administrator. i intend to uphold this variance. >> i have come to a conclusion sure i. what has swayed me at this point is the fact that this configuration, and this amount of building on this particular lot