But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. That does not m
No, i wasnt. But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. Th
And that is what process is being followed in this case . And i cant answer that question to the members of our association and the leaders of other associations that are asking me. Is this a new process . Is this a new way of doing things . Will other developers be given this shorter process . Because you know we just heard this case here in june. So were back kind of quick on that. I would like to be able to really fully be able to answer that question when i am asked that. And i cannot do that now. So some help on that would be very much appreciated. We also would appreciate some help as far as the timeframe is going on this. Were here in front of you just a couple of weeks before christmas and then a couple of weeks after christmas you want us to be back. There is all of this family stuff and christmas stuff that we need to do in the middle of it. Why is it such a rush . Can we not take a little bit more time in order to get the necessary Community Involvement that we need to have
The proposed design apparently stops its building 3. 5 away from three of our Property Line windows in the kitchens of our front units. The new plan though, if i understand it correctly, is that it does not match our light well midbuilding. The new building runs right up to an alongside our building by about half of our light well. This will further compromise necessary light into our bathroom and kitchen windows in our three front units. The plan also completely eliminates one of our Property Line windows in the dining room of our front unit. We need a detailed drawing of exactly how this building will impact our Property Line windows and need to reach an amicably place with this developer. We have asked him to participate in a preop meaning with the city or at least fund that so we can get clarity from the city, namely dbi and fire about what will happen with our remaining Property Line windows that are left. We would appreciate cooperation in that regard. We would like to continue t
Meet last night and one item of note was a rehearing request for Building Permit application dealing with glenn canyon park and before the hearing the request was withdrawn and the decision became final and the Building Permit is approved. Just wanted to inform the commission on that and there are no other reports. Commissioners, under item 814601 larkin street, informational, current status of the project design. Good afternoon president fong and members of commission. I am going to keep my comments very brief here. The subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal to demolish the church. This commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an Historic Resource under ceqa, but also to do with what i would collective call the compatibility. The project sponsor has been working collaboratively with Planning Department staff and with representatives of the community in an attempt to address staff concern