of the person speaking in opposition today -- none who spoke today live on adjacent properties. those who spoke live uphill from the property. we believe concerns about light, air, and you are properly dealt with at the board of appeals and the planning commission. when you appeal the historic preservation argument, you will find this it -- this appeal is about whether a new structure should be built in the same location in the middle of the lot, or the alternative that three city commissions have approved -- one unit in the rear and one unit in the front, in the area that is now open. in this regard, it is important

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 require rebuilding a green space that no longer exists on a lot. they deal with whether the new structure is compatible. the best known preservationist is dr. william pasteur. he conducted a survey which they did this survey is not historic. most importantly, he assigned no

historical importance to the fact that there is open space and the front of the lot. what is interesting is that the appellate chose to bumper with one of the commission who helped pay for the study of mr. pasteur that indicated that the open space -- that does not mention the open space having any importance. obviously, mr. butler agrees in part with his own story. mr. butler and's own brief you -- mr. butler's own brief to you quotes from his friend mr. press tour. "by 1900, five lots contain front and back buildings." mr. pasteur also says, " the front and back building on a lot is an urban phenomenon of

the 1980's." you can understand why so many city decision makers of the sudden my client's decision to build a structure at the front -- have decided my client's decision to build a structure at the front and back has a solid historic foundation. that condition started as early as the 18 eighties -- 1880's. my final remarks. mr. butler claims conditions of approval required the continuance of various pathways among the three lots on either side of my client's should be observed and rebuilt. he asked that the city ordered the innocent owners' next door

to entirely rebuilt the front corner of his building to make a patch available for future residents to my client's lot. this came up at the planning commission. why aren't we observing those conditions of approval? here is what the deputy city attorney and zoning administrator told the planning commission last year when they brought up, "why shouldn't we be following the 1998 conditions? aren't they binding?" first of all, the 13-year-old commission approval they needed has expired and is not being relied on by my client. the new stated that the voiding of this 1269 permit boy did all conditions attached -- permit voided all conditions attached.

third, the zoning administrator and city attorney said that even if those conditions were not abandoned, and the new commission approval would read it -- and the new commission approval would -- any new commission approval would replace it. there should be a new condition of approval and a new situation addressed. lastly, the 1271 lombard building, owned by mr. costa, has nothing to do with this. it had its own approval after the 1998 commission approval. it did not contain conditions stating that my client's lot --

future residents had to pass through that lot. further, the building permit had to be final after approval of the permit. there was construction in accordance with the permit and an issuance by the planning department and the board and the building department of a certificate of final completion for that structure on 1271, without pathways cross and it from my client's -- crossing it from my client's property. president chiu: any questions to counsel? at this time, why don't we hear from members of the public? i have several speaker cards. frederick knapp, tina moylen, p.j. hanlen, and carol anne rodgers.

first speaker. >> my name is tom burwell. i represent redwood mortgage. my brother and i and several others now run the small, private mortgage lender. the current owner of 1269 lombard street is in a limited partnership of which many of our investors are members. we took the property back after foreclosure when the developer abandoned the site in the midst of the renovation. our job was to resurrect a project to replace the unsightly condition the developer left. there is no money or profit to make of this foreclosed property. our goal was to develop the property that is acceptable and liked by the neighborhood, and to minimize additional losses to our investors. it is a difficult task to appease everyone. we would like to thank the russian hill neighbors, the

neighborhood association, 900 members strong, for its support. we wish to thank all the adjacent property owners for their patience and support with what we have proposed. upon taking back the property, we hired an architect. the initial design was not liked by the neighbors, so we hired another architect with a significant preservationist background. it also hired a well-known preservation consultant to advise us on how to create a project consistent with his torrid guidelines. we were in constant touch -- with historic guidelines. we were in constant touch with the planning department and the secretary of the interior's preservation guidelines. we paid particular attention to the analysis of this block, prepared by a well-known historian mr. william pasteur,

especially since mr. butler had helped commission that report. in deciding not to further renovate the existing structure, which relied on the written opinion of mr. pasteur and others that the building was not historic. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> mining is frederick napknapp. i am an architect practicing in san francisco. we evaluated whether 1269 lombard street is eligible for the california register, which would make it a historical resource porpoises of ceqa. the california register has four criteria for ceqa. we agree with william pasteur, the foremost authority on the history of russian hill, that it

is significant under criteria 3 port architecture -- three for architecture. the original physical characteristics which tell its story must be retained. today, 1269 lombard street does not retain historical integrity and does not contribute to the significance of the potential historic district. because of the 1980 addition you saw, which significantly altered the architecture of the building and the setting conditions which mr. butler has focused on, and because of partial demolition and excavation in the 19 nineties -- we agree the house is a historic resource. still, 1269 lombard street is not a historic resource, and the project would not have significant impact, including

1271. demolition in the front yard would not be a significant impact under ceqa because the building and site are not historic resources under ceqa. nowhere did the secretaries standards require reconstruction of something that is missing, like the front yard, or something altered, like the house. president chiu: next speaker. >> i am the project architect and structural engineer. our firm was retained almost four years ago after the other architects tried to find a design to replace the blight you now see at 1269 lombard street. we have design new buildings on contextualize sensitive sites -- we have designed new buildings on contextually sensitive sites. we made the additions to the

historic building at 1 kearney. this was an equally difficult puzzle to solve. our goal was to bounce the objectives of all stakeholders. we were sensitive to the historic nature of the site, working closely with mr. knapp and city preservation. i am here primarily to answer any questions you might have. the building is an environmental challenge, due to the existing concrete retaining walls. our new design lands right on top of these walls, and no significant new foundations will need to be built. the weight of our new structure will add to the stability of the existing conditions system. we organized and participated in out reach beyond the minimum required by the planning code, and as a consequence made significant revisions to our scheme. this site is on a very beautiful block, and an important one. dozens of visitors see this lot

on the way to lombard's historic crest. something went wrong in the past. but redwood attempted to participate in a rescue mission, and not a neighborhood skirmish. we urge you to uphold the findings of the planning department, the historic preservation commission, and the appeals board. we respectfully ask you to uphold the issuance of a categorical exemption by denying this approval. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is tina moyle. 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 have experienced stress, i expect. with 1269 lombard street, russian hill members has followed the aforementioned criteria. we have tracked this project for 18 months with a designated project leader who is a member of our executive committee. we have spoken at five different hearings in favor of going forward with the plans presented by the sponsor and architect. we have done due diligence and met with the neighbors, who at the time were opposed to the project. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is rod hamill. i purchased the uphill property

from 1269 lombard street. all three properties can be seen on the chart here, which you have looked at before. they were first put up for sale individually after having been under common ownership for many decades. that caused some of the problems will talk about. my wife and i met, were married, and lived in our home for years. until we moved a few blocks away to have more space to raise our family, we have been active managers, improving the property and maintaining it ever since, along with our sons, one of which is here. both of them would like the opportunity some time to live there. i am close friends with the people that bought 1269 lombard street in 1975. i understand their need to take the rabbit hutch of tiny rooms inside and turn it into a family

living space, which they did. we were not in support of them moving it forward into the only common aspect of our hill, which is the mid-block open space. they realized the error of that themselves, and moved away shortly thereafter. those changes eliminated all the historic association with either the interior or the exterior. fortunately, a 1998 decision which was a rush to decision would have exasperated that infringement on the mid-lot open space. it contributed to the gaping hole we have lived with ever since. fortunately, as you have heard, the neighbors who disagree with

-- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is martin frankel. i am part of the russian hill neighbors design group. i have tracked this project since becoming a member. after it initially met its board about and passed 18-1, i became aware of the project and have tracked it since then, until today. i have been in communication with the developers and have received a lot of the same e- mail you have received in regards to a position of the project. -- opposition to the project. i have known that the developers have worked with the neighbors as best i can -- they can in

accommodating modifications to the project. i do not see any reason why this project should have been in front of the board of appeals or in front of the supervisors. i am still in support of the project. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is patricia handlen. with my husband, i am the owner of 1267, the city adjacent to -- the property up the hill adjacent to fall 69. i read the appeal and the planning response. i was proud to see how carefully and accurately our planning department studied and carefully responded to the appeal. i sincerely hope that after all the years of discussion and review by our neighbors of historic light, height, open space, and other planning issues, that we can now move

ahead to successfully complete 1269 lombard street with the responsible proposal we believe will be built professionally by a developer who will continue to respond to legitimate neighborhood concerns. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is carol ann rodgers. i have been a resident of russian hill for more than 40 years. i have been involved with russian help neighbors for almost its entire existence. 25 years ago, i chaired the committee that listed three historic districts and one property on the national register of historic places. i should the passion for historic places we have discussed here today. i come back as a board member and a member of the committee tina referred to.

i would like to take a portion of my time, or perhaps most of it, to read a letter from a neighbor who lives next door and could not be here today. her name is deborah garoffolo. she writes, "i have lived next door to 1269 lombard street since 2001. i am in complete support of the plans. the architect came to the original open house. i have stay abreast of the process. they have had an open policy. they have been respectful to the neighborhood. they have made changes based on input. those opposed have no valid alternative. the existing home has no historical integrity. the property has been in a suspended construction site for many years. it is an eyesore on one of the most troubled tourists streets in san francisco. i have seen tourists stop to

take pictures of the rocking front door with no access. it is a rundown, unoccupied property which attracts graffiti and vandals. the construction would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. it is complementary to the street. this is a rundown lot and home. this would be an asset to the neighborhood. i hope you allow this construction to begin." i urge you to -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> it is my understanding that the opposition has already spoken. is it acceptable for me to speak with opposition? president chiu: if you are going to speak on behalf of the real party, that is acceptable. otherwise, the time has passed. >> can i speak on a factual point? president chiu: you can.

>> it came to my attention that one of the supervisors was under the impression, and perhaps others, that the historic preservation commission was in support of this. i do not know if that is true. i know from looking at their agenda and minutes for june to that date -- for june 2 that 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 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. 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 are so important to the history of our city and the reason tourists come to see it, continue. president chiu: supervisor campos, do you have a question

to mr. butler? supervisor campos: through the chair, going back to the question i have asked the planning department -- how is this situation, where you have a dispute among experts? according to planning, the expert testimony in the record all points to a specific conclusion that weighs against the appeal. what is your response to that argument? >> i think some of my response is semantic. they are saying that william custer did not mention it. he was writing a context survey for a building survey. he was not writing about a district nomination. when the department says there is no new evidence, we do not need new evidence. they just need to use evidence

already in the record. there are variances from 1973. the zoning administrator acknowledges the large front setbacks on this block and how important they are to the relationships of the buildings. when one walks on lombard street, one sees through the front setbacks of morrow's house and angle's house into the middle of the bloc come up the hill, to see where these buildings sit. to say that to take that away has no adverse change to the district is semantically wrong. mr. knapp's report contains factual errors. he stated that 1271 lombard had been moved closer to the street. in fact, it was the