recorded on the property. this is a direct quote from paragraph six. a complete on the purchase, they expect to develop at least three condominium units. from all of this documentation, it seems brazen that there would be a minimum of three units. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? richie house, if i can get the overhead, please. i want to speak to some of the speaker spoke about the density. 1262 and 1266 lombard, 1873 square feet. that is three units. that is one unit per 624 square feet. the subject property at 1268 is 4726 square feet of lot area. the building next door, 1280, is the exact same square footage as the subject property. he has parking units on it. it is way dancer at 264 square feet. mr. cassidy is have the density of half the density. i would also like to point out that again we have a five-foot rear yard, which is 93% lot coverage. 1280 lombard street, 82% of their lot is covered. the have a 25 foot deep rear yard. m
the foundation and we were limited in the amount of resources that he could tackle. we knew that this would be at california registry. we knew that he could go across the street. there are three aspects that tell part of the story of the robert price house which planning staff acknowledges it is within the settings they were modified to include the entire set back of your original house. that is with its magnolia tree. the entry of the neighboring building would be restored or maintained. the cliff, which is evident looking down, would still be present. and the tree would be retained. it is given a root area of 11 by 15. use the entire front yard of the house, which is 15 or 17-feet deep. restricting it to 11 by 15, would it save the tree? i am not sure. it would be important to look at that. could we please have the front setback and a building that is more to scale with its neighbors? a lot of this project is so big and does not back up like its neighbors. they have small
francisco. this is not something that just happened to somebody who bought a building and may be wanted to restore it. the original building was bought by people who are in the business of making sure that these old buildings fall down. they make sure they are not in any condition to be rehabilitated. i would like to see every creation of the building that should never have been torn down. i think the fact that the project sponsors, who do this sort of thing for a living, should not be rewarded for tearing down one of our most historic properties. i think you need to have them go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is far more appropriate for the site in a historic district, in a historic area. there are many of us in the preservation community who are just appalled by what was allowed to happen. it seems to me there was a provision in either the planning code or the building code that if an illegal demolition occurs that the building has to either be re