we have a letter from joseph butler requesting a rehearing. on december 15, the board voted to uphold the granting of the front step back and a rear yard variances. the variants holder is tom burwell. >> president goh, my name is joseph butler. i am requesting a rehearing. subsequent to the hearing on december 15, 2010, which funded -- bound a recorded document on the adjacent parcel was not recorded against both properties. it was signed by both former project sponsors, both of whom borrowed money to do the project from the variance holder. if you grant this variance and do not give a rehearing, it will preclude a condition of approval but was assigned at by the san francisco planning department in 1998. i read to you from exhibit 4 of my brief. the parties acknowledge the overlapping would stare and landing which is the subject of this agreement and on the land of pro 69 lombard street was originally constructed to serve the upper storey and was recommended under conditions set by the planning commission. i will tell you that conditions of t

joseph butler, a member of the american association of architects. i testified today as an architect and expert with more than 25 years' experience in my field. my credentials have been accepted by the planning department as meeting the secretary of the interior's qualifications. it is clear from reviewing the documents in the department filed that the exemption was made on a supplemental information form, by overlooking three nearby historic resources identified in a 1968 survey. one of those properties has a high degree of integrity, but this project will create significant negative impact. likewise, the president of this project -- adjacent to the right -- has been bought setbacks, 142 ord and 140 ord, that may be caused over time. the substantial cumulative impacts have been studied. it is my professional opinion that the project as proposed will cause substantial adverse change to the adjacent historical resources. it will suffer losses to three aspects of its integrity -- design, feeling, and safety. it is too late to suggest the hand written c

joseph butler used the same arguments in the case of 1269 lombard a few weeks ago. what he argued was the placement of buildings and office spaces around the front yard of 1269 created a formality and an historic feature of an inch deep front yard of the property. here, in his report does it one more time. id talks about the front yard, even though there is nothing historic in its -- this is a front yard with the driveway and parking spaces and concrete -- but he makes that into an historic feature by saying the front yard has an important spatial relationship compared to the lots and buildings are round it. in the 1269 case and the case before you, he says "the spatial relationship of and adjacent buildings on other lots next to and around a proposed project front yard open space is to be preserved." he compared that in both of these cases. "the tool in the neighborhood." -- "the jewel in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work in the -- in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work any -- in the lombard case. all d four open spaces have no

joseph butler, a member of the american association of architects. i testified today as an architect and expert with more than 25 years' experience in my field. my credentials have been accepted by the planning department as meeting the secretary of the interior's qualifications. it is clear from reviewing the documents in the department filed that the exemption was made on a supplemental information form, by overlooking three nearby historic resources identified in a 1968 survey. one of those properties has a high degree of integrity, but this project will create significant negative impact. likewise, the president of this project --