so if they can't get a loan to rebuild it. there is no reason not to allow this to become two parcels. if it became two parcels, a bookkeeping procedure, there would not be any open space lost, no parking spaces lost, nothing lost. it will simply allow this property to become more livable. the people who were against the partition previously are apparently angry. they are trying to punish the owners. what they are really doing is shooting themselves and the rest of the neighbors in the foot. the neighborhood has a dare electricity property. it is time to partition the property. to separate that request over the anger of the building that has been completed over a year. the decisions in the city hall

often remove renlts from the market. denying this partition would be another such decision, and i respectfully ask that you approve the request. i might add that it is not that easy to con do convert. my husband and i live in a two-unit building, and we have been waiting for seven years to convert our building. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> members of the board, good evening. my name is jill, and i currently rent the house at the dilapidated 112019th street. i have been a tenant of ron and rose manabat for the past three years. if i had not previously known about the t.i.c. relationship between the manabats and hughes, it would have never

occurred to me that the buildings were actually two structures on one lot. the buildings appear completely separate since the fence line clearly marks the boundary between the two. the manabats have expressed their desire to maybe repairs to the house. on several occasions they have shared their desire to subzwi the property for repairs. they expressed concern that a con do conversion would take several years to complete. frankly, i don't think the building repairs can wait much longer. the house is in need of immediate repair. siding needs to be installed. deck repaired, roofing and irrigation. as far as landlords, the manabats have been proactive and responsive to inquiries and requests. i have no reason to believe that they have an ulterior motive as has been suggested for the lot split. they have assured us that they have no intention of expanding

the house or doing any major construction outside the necessary repairs. as a result of none of us would be negatively impacted or forced to move. all three of us living on the hill, and we hope to stay there as long as possible. on behalf of myself and my two roommates, we are fully supportive of the permit and the proposed lot split. it would enable them to pull money from the house, make repairs quickly and beautify the street. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening board members. hi name is angrily king. my house is located at 490 pennsylvania avenue, which is a block away from the two houses that are requesting. i am here to support their appeal and to grant a

recommending of the lot split. i support their lot split request, as many of the neighbors do. i don't understand the opposition. i think that most of the -- the few people who are opposing the lot splint are upset because they lost the initial discretionary review hearing several years back. many of those neighbors live in very large homes throughout the neighborhood. throughout the years i have driven by these two properties, and i have always thought they were two separate properties. one is a cottage that faces 19th street and the other faces pennsylvania avenue. they are divided by completely enclosed fences, so they look like they are two properties. they look from all appearances like two separate lots. it wasn't until i was informed that they were t.ism c. properties. i don't think there is a

negative impact to the neighborhood with this split. we have tiny cotages on little lots and large modern homes. a lot split for these properties would not be out of character for the neighborhood. i would like to state that the little cottage never had a parking spot. the two sparking spots in existence is on the large house. i don't understand the issue with parking. frankly, there is no issue with parking in our neighborhood, unlike a lot of neighborhoods. i want to say that con do conversion is not a simple solution. it takes a lot of money to do a lot of up grades and a lot of time as well. it is not just a simple solution. i think that we should do the lot split because they operate as two separate lots. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is shawn gorman, and i

live at 366 pennsylvania, just down the street from the hughes. i am an architect, and i'm pretty familiar with the neighborhood and with a lot of the construction that has been going on around the area. as stressed before, the existing conditions are going to stay the same. basically you have got the small cottage in the back, and you have got the hughes' residence in the front. the fence is going to stay the same. there are going to be no material changes to the character of the neighborhood or, frankly to the property. it looks like we will get the rear cottage improved. given the variance process, as has been explained earlier, it is going to make it more difficult for future owners to

alter either building. there are going to be restrictions in terms of adding units, which is actually a fairly big concession. regarding the parking. the one issue that we have on the 300 block is there is no permit parking there. we really don't have a major parking problem in that area. as was discussed earlier, the rear building has never really hadoff street parking. -- off-street parking. the long and the short of it is approving a variance on the property isn't materially going to change anything in terms of the character of the neighborhood or, frankly, the character of the block. so i'm in favor of reinstating and approving a variance for this property. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> hi, 34i name is jackie gorman. we live at 366 pennsylvania avenue. i am here to read a letter from matt holt and elizabeth frock. dear members of the board. good evening. we reside at 1133 19th street. we have lived there since 2004. our home is located across the street from the manabat's house at 1120 19th street. we could not be here tonight but have submitted this letter for your consideration. if you wish to follow up with either of us, please contact us at your convenience. we have known the manabat family for years. we met them almost immediately after we moved there and developed a nice relationship

with them. ron and rose are wonderfully nice and good people, and their boys are adorable children. we are aware that they are tenants in common. the manabats have shared with us they are seeking to subdivide the problem in order to refinance, pull out equity and make repairs to their house. we are supportive of their efforts to seek a variance to allow the lot to be split. we were made aware that the variance permit required for the lot split was previously denied. that came as a surprise to us. from our perspective, and we literally have a direct line of sight to the front of the 1120 19th street house. a lot split has no impact on us nor the surrounding neighborhood. the two homes are already physically separated by an existing fence. it is our understanding that the manabats have also agreed

to never increase the envelope of the building. given that restriction, respect we fail to understand how a lot split would negatively impact or possess any detriment to the neighborhood. it seems more likely that not granting the lot split could have a potential negative impact on the neighborhood. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is marie cross. my husband and i have been residents on the hill for nearly 20 years and live at 210618th street. we support the manabat's effort to subdivide their block. we were part of one that were approved at 701 vermont and 594 vermont. in the case of 701 vermont, a cause ruled by mr. badner, the

similarities between the lot split are hard to ignore. in 701 vermont the lot contains an apartment building faces vermont street and a single family house facing 19th street. this is a very similar situation to the manabats and hughes. in their case, there are two single family homes facing different streets. in the findings of mr. badner, he stated that granting this variance for 701 vermont is the best and most feasible manner that the owners can deal with the two buildings separately. they are simply seeking an option that will allow them to refinance and make timely improvements to their house. a lot split would allow both parties to be able to deal with their buildings separately. in addition, with 701 vermont, mr. badner ruled that the proposal does not include any construction. the physical condition of the property would not change. in the case of the manabat he is, they are not proposing any

new construction. they are willing to restrict the envelope of their building. the variance requested at 701 vermont was granted with the following stipulations. one, an increase in the number of dwelling units shall not be permitted, and two, no vertical or horizontal expansion on either building shall be allowed unless authorized by the zoning administrator. given this information it is difficult to understand why the manabat's previous variance request was denied. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi name is tony kim, and i live on 208 vermont speed. i have been a resident for eight years. i wanted to correct one statement i heard earlier today that the hughes do not reside at their residence. they in fact do. i have been to their house, so i can confirm that they live

there. i also wanted to point out that i've reviewed a lot of the letters of opposition, and there is a statistic that gets brought up around only three lots within a quarter mile radius having less than 1,000 square feet. i just don't see how that is relevant to the situation here. as you guys are aware, there are five primary criteria for the variance. in the review i also noted that the 690 arkansas, 701 vermont and 594 vermont streets were also granted variances. i fully support the variance in discussion here. if the planning commission or the zoning administrator has other survey information that is available for those other properties with respect to the

quarter mile radius, i would like to request that information at this time. and if there is no rational badse -- basis for not granting the variance, i request that the regulations be consistent for all of the residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i am alison hughes. i live in the 300 block of mississippi. i don't really want to talk about how hard it is to find parking on street cleaning days or the contentions of the current owners. my concern is the division of this lot will allow at some future point in time the development of this smaller house. we already have a fairly maxed-out lot. if that second building were to

be expanded, i think it would be ridiculously huge. i would hate to see that happen. i have heard they are willing to limit the number of units. i haven't heard any guarantee they would limit the size of the smaller building. that is my primary concern. thank you. >> thank you. i have one speaker card left for a flesha feng. does anyone else care to speak? any other public comment? seeing none, we'll move into rebuttal. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. we can certainly appreciate the appellant's concerns and issues regarding financing. however, that is not a suitable

criteria for justifying granting them a variance. additionally, this hardship is self imposed given the 1975 decision to allow construction at the front of the property. additionally, had the timing of this worked differently, had there been a stwigstrire to the 2007-2008 fourth floor addition, based on the plans, i believe that the rear upper part of the fourth floor would have required a variance. it was in a buildable area at the time it was proposed. but given the current lot, it would have otherwise required a variance. the appellant essentially argues that every lot split should be approved. i don't see where the end of the logic is. essentially anything that comes before the zoning administrator should be approved for the division of a lot.

the other examples are incomparable to the subject location. they have different issues and facts. we find in this case the 25 by 100 foot lot, the buildings that were built pursuant to the variance in 1975, i believe those warrant denial of the variance. the neighbors ralph raised issue of the -- have raced issue with the quarter mile radius. we believe that is a suitable metric to determine what the lot size is in the area. it may be imperfect, but it helps in making a decision. in regard to the rear building, yes, they would be dwranted a bit more buildable area because their front set-back would then be on 19th street, and they could potentially add a floor

that may even fit within the buildable area. but the clause in there in the variance letter that the administrator can review it doesn't mean there would need to be a variance for it. it may be such a small floor because of the front set-back requirement because it has a height limit there of 40 feet, and you would have a rear yard requirement. it may be that the proposed additional floor would be so small it wouldn't be feasible without a variance. that may be the case, but there would be some additional buildable area that would be granted to that property. i respectfully request you uphold the denial of the variance. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, i must have misunderstood you the first time you were here. i had asked you if any additional benefits would accrue to the manabats and hughes were the split to be allowed, and you led me to understand there wouldn't be,

and unless you heard you wrong just now, you are suggesting if the split were to go through, they were -- they would be granted an additional floor? >> yes. it may be such a small amount of space that it would be feasible after the variance. this is something i noticed after one of the last speakers mentioned concerns for spanks of that rear building. yes, there would be the potential for some minor envelope they would have that would be code demrinet. >> if that were the only hang-up, and i know you are not suggesting that it is, we could place an n.s.r. on the property and not allowed any future expansion. >> i think this board has broad powers and could make that as a condition of approval.

>> thank you. >> along the same lines, the manifest building is actually totally nonforming at this point, isn't it? >> yes, because it is completely in the required year yard. rear yard. >> if the lot split occurred, then the front damage of that building would be off of 19th, and the required rear yard would be behind that, wouldn't it? >> i wouldn't it -- believe it wouldn't -- they don't satisfy a rear yard requirement. >> i understand. i am saying if that was a lot, then the calculation of the rear yard would occur from 19th street? >> that is correct. >> thank you.

>> first of all, just to make it clear, because michelle hughes is very upset. he he she stood in front of the planning commission pregnant with twins. she broke down crying because people accused her then of not wanting to live in the place she was already living in. that is why she added a floor. it was to add bedrooms for the twins. so this idea that they were developers and greedy, i don't get it. i've done variances for 25 years, and many of you have seen and read them for years. you probably know that one of the key questions is are there substantial property rights that are being sought here that have been given in cases in this neighborhood, that is the

key question, and the answer is yes, provided by mr. badner. two below 1,000 and one at 1,081. the conditions that we have offered about vertical expansions triggers variances even if they don't anyway, no horizontal, if you want after i speak, i can talk about how that can be enforceable. that takes into account a lot of the concerns. the condo law requires if they are going to do the automatic con do conversion, the manabats would have to kick out the tenants they have now, and they don't intend to. otherwise they have to get lottery tickets and have to wait the statistically 2-10 years. the statements by mr. sanchez that this is a self-createed

hardship. the building went up that the hughes are in, in 1975. the hughes did not even reach high school in 1975. there is no self-imposed hardship here. their adding a floor in no way affected this lot split approved or denied. i've never seen in the last five years when the city has been enforcing its policy, i've never seen a variance denied because of a parking reason. the parking is not there now for the manabats. they couldn't be. they would have to raze and destroy an historic building. they are -- it is only 1100 to 1150 square feet. maybe it could have another 100 or 200 even though variances may not be required in the future for them.

i don't understand the talk about monster homes and worries from the neighbors. thank you very much. >> commissioners. the matter is submitted. >> i will go first, i guess. i guess the first thing i want to talk about is an irony operating here. i am wondering what i am missing. it is the same thing i felt when i read the papers. if they were to go through the con do conversion process, i don't know how in any way this would be -- that the ultimate result would be any different than the split. it is not going to look different. whatever they would be allowed to do would be the same were they to be granted the

variances that would allow them to split. that confuses me as to what the opposition was. i think someone got up and spoke about the fact that there are people in the neighborhood who are unhappy about the building on the corner. that would explain the neighbors, but i am not totally clear on what i would consider to be an overly strict interpretation of the rules. the variances are legitimate that are requested that they be denied with the exception of the parking. it used to strike me that on the same evening a lot of times, people would come here, and they would have one case where the issue had to do with someone wanting to create more parking for whatever reason. the planning department would be against it. somebody else would be here

that same evening who weren't being allowed to do something because they wouldn't have the parking, and we wouldn't hear about transit first. it would seem like these two things should be in conflict with one another but they weren't because the code is in conflict with itself. were this split to be allowed, nothing changes having to do with the parringing. there is no parking now. there would be no parking were the split to be allowed. that wouldn't change. nothing actually changes. the appearance of the house won't change. nothing will change. the fence will still be there. what will change, perhaps, is given the economic times that we are in right now and the low interest rates, it is a very favorable time for someone to go out and get a loan and try to pull some equity out of a house and improve it. it does occur to me -- i think i heard some figure of about $20,000 spent so far. that would have gone a long way

on a 1,000 square foot-plus building to have done some renovating. as far as i can tell, they are not trying to gain the system. perhaps they would be in a more favorable position to expand this particular property were the split to go through, but that is not guaranteed. it is not like this happens and therefore the other is bound to happen. one of the speakers said something to the effect that if that is not the house these couples wanted, why did they buy? >> i have two children. i worry deeply about their ability to live in san francisco. my son and his wife make a very good living here, but it is very expensive to live here.

for someone to get a t.i.c., you are going to criticize for something like that? i don't think that is reasonable. i guess i'm wondering if this really has to do with what went on the corner as far as the neighbors -- again to repeat myself. as far as the department, i think the attorney for the appellants did a very good job, and i agree with mr. sanchez that you can't compare variances. they are different sets of circumstances. as he stated, it is not presidential. the argument that would be used for why something would be a hardship is similar. the hardship here is economic realities, and there is an article in our papers having to do with the "wall street journal" article that addresses the fact that with the quig

haitian on a small property, it is not as clean and easy to get fbsing. and were you to get financing, i can guarantee you that you would not get the same rate they would get were you to have the split. to conclude, if someone drove by there every day for the last five years, and tomorrow this split were to happy, for the next five years, they would never know it. it is going to look exactly the same, and it is going to be exactly the same. the one little worry here having to do with expansion can be satisfied. even though the manabats might not want that, maybe affecting the value of the property, we can place an n.s.r. on that and say you don't get to expand. sorry. i look forward to other comments. >> you are supporting