"compatible exceptions, victorian and edwardian 2 to 3 story mentions, apartment blocks, a dozen which punctuate the corners of the district. compositionally, two-part blocks with differentiated base and relatively simple upper sections topped by a visually heavy cornice. yet the applicants plans add historical features, such as the undifferentiated base. not a compatible exception. and also proposes to rip out historic wood facades with the upper floors. denied on these grounds. third, similar projects close to the buildings have left eye sores on street level. applicant has proposed to do it one garage at a time over the period of years, and therefore threatens a mismatched structure facing the square. the detailed brick facade is difficult to match once, let alone over the course of several years. i can say that i as one of the leaseholders of the front facing garages on the fulton street, i have no intention of leashing -- leaving. i have -- >> thank you, your time is up. your time is up. >> it would create an incentive for the landlord to try and get people with rent control out o

block, the public's enjoyment of the street views on the block and unique examples of victorian and edwardian ak techture warrant protection. i urge you to support the written findings. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm the owner and resident at 3508 clay street. merrill randall. i also want to extend my thanks to you for your well considered and well explained draft opinion on this case. since i believe in the adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words, i'm going to place a picture you've already seen that will illustrate some of the aesthetic concerns that we would have if verizon was allowed to place an antenna on the light pole at 3512. it's well within your statutory basis to determine that verizon has not satisfied the aesthetic requirements and standards of our article 25. the board's draft determination about aesthetic concerns supersedes that of the d.p.w. in fact it's interesting to note, if you remember, that the board -- or that d.p.w. was questioned and ashley lindsey said that in consideration by the d.p.w. concerning aesthetic, it only looks from a pedestrian's viewpoint fr

you are absolutely right, this is a historical property, in an edwardian neighborhood. the subject building is the biggest property already. it occupies the entire lot, and the property is a structure of merit, category b, and as such, it requires preservation -- a detailed preservation report, and no such report has been prepared. i inquired with the planning -- project planner, and the -- so also, i would like to say that i agree with the commissioners, that the project is out of character. take a look at this addition, four-story addition, topped by a fifth story deck almost 8 feet high. it's -- it's not only out of character and it's visible from both sides, including the front, but also, it's built totally against existing building codes, namely, it's building code 134 requires 25% of the open space. then, this property is located, as you are aware, in vanness special district use. and washington street is in the district. it is washington street is a corridor, and special precautions are done by the san francisco building code to protect it. namely, section 253.2