might be grouped because the health department requires no smoking within 15 feet of the interest and this would be there. >> do we want to roll it alcohol use permit? >> this will all come up under review on november 15th. he is able to get all of that between now and november 15th. >> grant the appeal and overturn the department and the appellant be allowed to submit a renewal request on november 15th on condition that the tables and chairs will be allowed between

1:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and the area must be cleaned daily. is that correct? on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> : item number8. disregards the property at 1120 19th street also known as 398 pennsylvania street. this is the nile of a lot area, rear yard and on street parking variance. no construction of any type is

deposed. this on the administrator will get the appellants. -- no construction of any type is proposed.

>> we want to make sure that you understand that the seven and three minutes allotted are the times during which they can speak. you'll need to speak if he wished to during the time allotted to the party and not during public comment. >> the item before you is the denial of the variance request. the item was heard on march 24th, 2010. these are for a lot areas, rear yards, and of st. parking. the subjects property is a 25 by 100 foot lot. the proposal would subdivide this into two lots, one on pennsylvania, 398 pennsylvania.

this would be located at 1120 19th street and the approximately 863 square feet. the minimum size for this property is 1750 square feet. they require a rear yard variants. the development pattern of the property has a structure at the rear trawling and a dwelling at the front that does not have the code compliance between the properties and would not have it. a parking variance is required because while two parking spaces are provided, the building up front i believe on pennsylvania is only accessible to the building. this will not be accessible to the building at of the rear on

19th street. i would like to go through the findings described by the sunni and diminish trader who denied the request. this is a typical want. there are no extraordinary circumstances. -- this is a typical lot. the survey of the parcels within a quarter mile found another 1001 pattern 70 in size and of these were only found three that were less than 1000 square feet and knees were subdivided prior to 1946. the building at the front of the properties, this was a variance in 1975. one of the reasons they are

requesting this is because of the construction of the building. additionally, they have alternatives. there was no extraordinary circumstances. imposing the requirements, we found that this was not a practical hardship because they have alternatives. they can maintain the property in the current configuration. they can also seek to subdivided this fruity subdividing process. if both of them are owner occupied, they bypass the lottery requirements. additionally, the building on below has been maxed out of your time. -- over time.

in 2007-2008, there was a building permit for the subject property that was subject to discretionary review requests. i have a photo of the building to show the current structure. this is the building at the front, the building at the rear, and the subdivision. we found there was no hardship other than that imposed by the property owner in constructing the building at the front of the lot. they are seeking aid variants for a property right that is not bound by others in the neighborhood. we only found three that were less than a thousand square feet.

this is in fact larger than the 25 square feet in the lots. this would not be typical of the pattern but of the typical pattern. this would establish a substandard lot condition. currently they can maintain this as it is. they would also be granted a right that others don't have been in the area of. finally, the appellant has made a request to some of the arguments about previous or other decisions. the first is not a precedent- setting. each is unique and each has a set of circumstances. in the cases that were represented by the project

sponsor, this is about 9-10 blocks away. this was about 37.6 feet by 100 feet. this was not the standard size. the property on webster -- >> on that one that you just mentioned, the other lotm%i is saying, and only one was substandard? >> based on my reading of the variance letter, it only applied to one property. second, on webster, this is obviously not in the same neighborhood. it's a through lot between webster and wilmont. this only created one substandard lot. it was quite substandard at 1,756 square feet. the building at the front and rear were built in approximately 1906. there is a very distinct

pattern of the small lots at the rear of these. the board has seen another case on wilmont that was similar to this. the property at 690 yark, only one substandard lot was created. that was more than 2,000 feet from the property. it was an odd-shaped lot, exceptional wide at 50 feet and had an add angular shape to it. for those ronings and for the five findings that were not met, we respectfully request the board upheld the administrator's denial of the requested variance. thank you. >> commissioner peterson: could you put that vote back up? could you point out again the buildings on the lot? >> this is the building which fronts on pennsylvania, and this is further down 19th at 1120 19th.

this is the building that was constructed post 1975 variance. commissioner peterson: and recently, a couple of years ago, the fourth floor was added? >> that's right. in 2007-2008, there was a request for a fourth floor. the department recommended several cut-backs in terms of side setbacks. the commission chose a different alternative, and that is the project that is built today. >> i am none clear. can i point back to that picture? >> yes. >> the back lot, is that the how with the roof, with the flue or whatever that is? >> that is correct. >> so it is completely different? >> and that is the old -- that is 1900-ish or so? >> yes. the older building is at the rear. >> can you repeat what you said about the con do lottery?

>> yes, there is an alternative available to them through the department of public works in the condominium conversion process. you are allowed to convert up to seven units in the lottery process. there is a lottery bypass for two units that are owner-occupied. >> i didn't hear that, owner occupied, ok. >> so the manabats would have to move back in there for at least a year to qualify for the bypass? >> that's right. >> we are hearing in the papers that the main benefit to the requestor for the property split has to do with more favorable finance. what other benefits would accrue to them were they to be allowed to split the profit of the lot? >> much easier modification of

the property. that is really what the benefit is. they would have two separate individual lots that they can then sell off in the future, whereas having the two units on one property makes the selling of it more difficult. >> i asked the question poorly. what i meant was would they be allowed to do greater expansions as a result of the split, or whatever rules applied now would continue to apply? >> the rules that apply now would continue to apply. though probably would not not be able to expand the building without an aofficial variance. right now it would be one single family dwelling on each of the lots, and that could theoretically be increased to two on each lot. however, it has not been uncommon to condition it to limit it to only one dwelling unit. >> i noticed in the papers again that it was offered that

the hughes property, the pennsylvania avenue property would have an n.s.r., which seems to be unnecessary because it is basically n.s.r.'ed, and they would have to go through the variance process. >> no every variance there would be a special n.s.r. attached to the property. for another variance, they would have required it. if granted, we would have required an n.s.r. >> thank you. >> i have a question. if the properties are subdefied -- subdivided, then the proigs -- prohibition against improving a nonformed structure would be moot because they would each be on their own

separate lots and they would be conforming. >> i'm not sure i understand the question entirely. >> two buildings on one lot. one is nonconforming, right? >> right. >> so one is not meant to improve the nonconforming structure, right? >> what they are seeking here would render the properties more nonconforming in that right now they have the code required amount of parking spaces at two. so the subdivision would receiver the parking accessibility from the 19th and pennsylvania properties. that would create a new deficiency in terms of parking. also, the rear yard would become even more noncompliant because we are cutting whatever open area there is now in half. it doesn't do anything to increase or improve the conformity of the buildings to grant the variance. >> so if they wanted to improve the smaller building -- >> there is nothing at all-pro

hibting improvement of the properties, or maintenance of the properties. as you can see from the photographs and recent permit activity, they were able to obtain financing for a fourth floor of the building on pennsylvania. there is nothing that we would prohibit them from maintaining the property and the historic structure. they can repair and maintain that. there is nothing we would do to prohibit that. if they wanted to expand it or replace something, if they wanted to tear it down and rebuilding, there would be issues with variance, but as far as maintaining the properties, they can do that. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellant or their representative.

>> president and members of the board. i am ron manabat. this is my wife rose. we are located on the property at 1120 19th street. our home is in need of major improvement. we are embarrassed by the condition of the house. our house is the ugly duckling on the block. we don't have the carbon hand. the only way to afford the repairs to the place is to pull the money from the building. we can't wait for the conversion. for example, the siding needs to be addressed before this winter season or our tenant could be negatively impacted. second, the conversion process

itself could cost from $20,000 to $50,000. we are struggling ourselves, and we don't have that kind of cash laying around. all we are trying to do is formalize an imaginary line that separates the two homes in order to facilitate our repairs, nothing more. here is the fence line. we submitted to you a recent "wall street journal" article demonstrating the difficulties to obtain an loan. the banks that make those loans come at enormous cost because they consider them risky. my wife and i aren't clear on what transpired when the hughes added to their building. we feel it would be unfair to be denied because of what they did. whatever ill feeling the neighbors have with the

situation with the hughes should not be able to -- we plan to change nothing on our lot. it will enable to improve the exterior of our building, something neighbors usually support. we are surprised by the opposition represent today. to prevent future impact to the neighbors and on behalf of ourselves and future owners, we have agreed to record a document to never odd a second unit on our lot while we own it, and the hughes have done the same. i am told that every variance contains a condition any further expansion shall be reviewed by the zoge administrator to determine if it is in character with existing details. issuance of our variance would be a lum takes on what would normally be allowed. it reduces potential envelope.

to finish, this variance will benefit the neighbors in three ways. first, with proper financing, wnbaler able to improve the exterior of house. second, our neighbors will never be impacted by another building. any square footage by the two buildings will receive more scrite any by the planning department since they must be approved by the zoning administrator even though it is not required for both code-come applying addition. here is our attorney. >> i have just two remarks. money was borrowed to do the new floor on the hughes. that is not true. i don't know. maybe he has seen a title report, but my client told me that if he had a title report here, he had no financing. he did it with his own money.

unfortunately that is not true of the manabats. my client can testify that he did not take out a loan. as to the question by commissioner goh, i think what he was saying is once you split the lots, the degree of noncorment today of the homes actually increases. anyway, i was very surprised by this decision. mr. badner normally renders great variance decisions. the key argument is three of the 1,172 lots are under 1,000. that is not really relevant. the variance criteria does not ask the question how many lots are similar to your proposed lot. what the question is whether there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing today. it says applying to the property involved, meaning today, that would justify the variance. it is under that question that

mr. bad ner citeded three out of 1,172. if the question stated would issuing the variance create an exceptional circumstance, then mr. badner would have been correct. only three to 10 have such a small size. the real question is exception after circumstances. it is rare that two single family homes exist on one lot. we did a survey. we may be a few off, but we found on these nine blocks around here that the red arrows show there are only three. maybe there are six. it is hard to see. but it is a rare condition. now what is interesting is the other variances we put before you by mr. badner on the same side all say that there are similar very small lot sizes

existing on all four sides, and it even refers to them of similar small sizes in older city neighborhoods throughout. so in that instance, he is talking about much larger areas than the 1,172 survey. the three lots under 1176 were created to the minimum lot size ordinance. if you look at the date of your variances, you will see that mr. badner created at least three in his own tenure under the minimum lot size quirmente there before you. so i don't uns that statement in the variance. you will see before you that 690 arkansas a proved a lot of only 900 square feet, 594 vermont, 950, and 2125 19th, a block away, 81 feet above the 1

,000 square foot limit that he uses. he cuts it at that number. thank you. >> we can move into public comment then. i have nine speaker cards. given the hour, i am wondering if you want to recommend a different allotment of time. two minutes perhaps? is that acceptable? >> i have speaker cards. if people wouldn't mind lining up on the side of the room, starting with mary jane mikuria. dick, millet, noni, jill webber -- i apologize if i am not pronouncing your name correctly.

angela, jackie gorman, shannon gorman, fleesh feng. please step forward. you have two minutes. >> hello. i live right next door to the old house. i also have a lot that is 100 by 25. my house is 1892, and i was not in the city at the time that the 1976 decision was made to add a new address to the same block. because it was the first address when i moved in there was 1120 19th street. there were chickens out front.

when i came back three years later, there was a house there. the house, i thought, was not allowed to be there. now since, there was a new addition. the new addition was made just recently. if they knew that they were going to ask for a division of property, why did they make it 40 feet high? they could have divided it. also, they said there were two parking spaces in their application because there were two houses and that is what was part of the application. now if they separate it, there is no parking space for the smaller house. there are all these other problems that have developed after they made the great big house that you saw that overwhelms that whole corner that you have seen. so i would recommend that you do not support the request for

a denial of this, but follow the planning code. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> my name is dick mille tench. i am an architect. i was involved in the original problems with the construction of the overbuilding of this lot at the time. it is a standard lot, 25 by 100, and it is overbuilt. it was built as a residence for the hughes, and the other couple -- it was a t.i.c. as well. i thought we had won it with this denial of this division before. i don't know why it's back now. i understand that the hughes don't live in their house.

the whole fight was for them to build this house for them as a growing family, and it's a big house. now they have problems. they haven't justified a hardship of any kind. these are just desires, and they seem to have more desires, and more desires. i am a big supporter of the planning code. i think sometimes the planning department is a little bit too generous in the variances. we won this one, and i thought they did a good job. i think the hugheses are a sophisticated couple, and their lawyer is a sophisticated lawyer. i just can't think that they can't accept the fact that they don't want a condo conversion, and they don't want the t.i.c.

they should have gone somewhere else and bought a lot. i don't know where they live now. i am against their division of this lot. i think they still have options that they haven't used because they just don't want to. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioner. my name is noni. i am president of the small property commission of san francisco. the hughes are members of our organization, and they have asked me to appear. they definitely live in that house. i visited the property today. there are parking spaces all over the place. i saw two buildings facing two streets, and those buildings appeared to be totally unrelated to each other. there is a cute cottage on 19th street that sits in a sad state