to note that there are nine lots between the addresses 1215 and 1275, as seen here. most of them have structures at the rear. eight have structures at the very front. the original structures at the rear were from the 1870 s. within 10 years, the structures at the front were built one by one. my client s property is the exception property that has no front structure. the appellants take the position that all the the existing structure is not historic enough to preserve, that its location on a lot should be memorialized permanently by placing a new structure in the same footprint as the existing law. to help convince you that empty space in front of the current structure has acquired its own historical status, they are making the claims it is very typical to assign historical status to an empty portion of a lot and not a structure. but this is extraordinarily unusual, as our historic expert can tell you. it relied on planning and the preservation commission, who do not requir
elevation visible above the public right of way is a substantial adverse change. 1271 is the contributor to a potential historic district. the site of 1269 contributes to this district, not the building, but the site. it describes the way it be three lots were used the way the 3 lots were used. at the back of 1265, they can walk out onto the roof of 1269. the davies lived in 1269. there are all sorts of interwoven pieces of this site. the story is told only by the void in the center. if you have a violin and you put it on your shelf for display, it can still play music. but if someone comes into your house and filled with sand and mortar and it becomes solid and cannot come out, it looks the same, but the boy is gone. the soundbox can no longer produce the story of its music, just like filling this garden with a new building will take away forever the story of the davies, and how they were stories stuarts of this property for stewards of this property for many years. yo
the site of 1269 contributes to this district, not the building, but the site. it describes the way it be three lots were used the way the 3 lots were used. at the back of 1265, they can walk out onto the roof of 1269. the davies lived in 1269. there are all sorts of interwoven pieces of this site. the story is told only by the void in the center. if you have a violin and you put it on your shelf for display, it can still play music. but if someone comes into your house and filled with sand and mortar and it becomes solid and cannot come out, it looks the same, but the boy is gone. the soundbox can no longer produce the story of its music, just like filling this garden with a new building will take away forever the story of the davies, and how they were stories stuarts of this property for stewards of this property for many years. you need to make the planning department do extra, and require of the people that submit to them extra work, so that these resources, which a
i am the current president of russian hill neighbors. i would like to read our mission statement. russian hill neighbors is the place for residents and merchants to preserve neighborhood character, quality of life, collaboration, volunteering, and celebration of the community. we fight to abide by our mission statement while making any decisions are taking stands on projects, issues, and positions that impact both on russian hill and the city of san francisco. being process oriented, we do just that. we follow a process that is collaborative. for land use issues, we try to stay informed through board members who sit on the board of the san francisco neighborhood network college coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. our committee on land use has eight minutes eight members, and includes architects, builders, and those who have gone to the tedious process of building their own homes within the guidelines of the planning department and the stipulations in san francisco.
they wrote a letter of concern. at the june 24 planning commission, they received a letter of concern from the historic preservation commission. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the real party of interest? let us move on to three minutes of rebuttals by the appellant. thank you, supervisors. i am professionally qualified by the secretary s standards to make evaluations of historic sites and buildings. in my view, this will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding historic resources, especially 1271 lombard. earlier, we heard substantial evidence from tina tam. substantial evidence means enough reasonable inferences from information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. that is from examining the whole record before the leed agency. the loss of 42 feet of the east elevation visible above the public right of way is a s