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 proper

we are requesting commission to remove a nonconforming structures that we can have a garden. the structure in question was built without a permit in 1947. this was still below grade on a concrete slab. the neighbors objected strenuously. on april 7th, the committee granted approval and this is consistent with the general plan. the structure is not historically or architecturally significant. the property is now classified and this consists of the original 89 the house. this was prior to 1947 and a one story structure in question. this is out of character with the district which is part of the immediate area. in addition, density guidelines in the planet code limit this to approximately 3712 square feet. the small loss last this not qualified. the rear yard open space requirements are violated and the size is approximately 62 feet deep. the comment on his face is 452 square feet and the existing usable open space is only 220 square feet. the code requires a minimum of one of street parking space per dwelling unit and we have none. there are also a key violations of the plannin

kravitz have to do with nonconformance to a permit and not why he did not file in time, except for the notice issue, which has been addressed. if there questor fort jurisdiction 0-- requestor for jurisdiction did not do that, there are other options than the board of appeals, correct? >> the department of building inspection could verify that it is what on the building plan -- what is on the building plan. >> so there is a question of whether planning should have in the first place granted the permit? >> that is an argument that could have been explored. however, i would point out that even if there is a minor view issue, that in and of itself would not be enough for us to deny the permit. we would have to have other reasons for denying the permit. as i said, this is the first time i have heard of it. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. president peterson: i think i have some more questions for mr. kornfield. i am looking at these plans, the revisions approved march 5, 2010. would it be possible to have them put on the overhead? >> sure. let us s