But its certainly not this building at all. It talks about this building being out of context with the neighborhood buildings and its not true at all. Its very much in context with it. I guess without repeating what ms. Tam said its basically not a historic resource. It lost all of its inintegritiy and nothing significant happened here and thats why its not part of the Historic District but in term was an electic districts and Tall Buildings and newer buildings and it fits into a eclectic mix so i want to encourage you to support the categorical exemption determined by the Planning Department, and not accept this appeal and i will leave the last two minutes unplanned to bruno. Well, i guess theres not much more to say. Arnie has been very good to detail in the report that was given to you our rebuttal very carefully how this project is not a there is any reason to appeal this categorical exemption. All of the materials of the building have been changed over the years. The building has
Where we started. We since removed the roof top penthouse with elevator and the pits in order to preserve the views of the roof top for the neighbor. It was important to retain accessibility to the area and my parents are elderly and one is wheelchair bound and this was a concession in the attempts that we gave concession to the neighbor by removing the top portions of the building and the front of the building. Weve done this our building actually is not as tall as the neighbors building nor as large. I will simply say that heres a good picture of the top of the hill which our building sits at. This is in the neighbors building and our building here. If you consider that on a horizontal level field the neighbors building is much taller than ours. Its a 4,000 square foot building. We are proposing 75 of that area so its an exempteration exaggeration to say that our building is that large. There is no basis for the appeal of the categorical exemption or delay of our project. We did ever
With elevator and the pits in order to preserve the views of the roof top for the neighbor. It was important to retain accessibility to the area and my parents are elderly and one is wheelchair bound and this was a concession in the attempts that we gave concession to the neighbor by removing the top portions of the building and the front of the building. Weve done this our building actually is not as tall as the neighbors building nor as large. I will simply say that heres a good picture of the top of the hill which our building sits at. This is in the neighbors building and our building here. If you consider that on a horizontal level field the neighbors building is much taller than ours. Its a 4,000 square foot building. We are proposing 75 of that area so its an exempteration exaggeration to say that our building is that large. There is no basis for the appeal of the categorical exemption or delay of our project. We did everything we can to meet the neighbors concerns while meeting
With elevator and the pits in order to preserve the views of the roof top for the neighbor. It was important to retain accessibility to the area and my parents are elderly and one is wheelchair bound and this was a concession in the attempts that we gave concession to the neighbor by removing the top portions of the building and the front of the building. Weve done this our building actually is not as tall as the neighbors building nor as large. I will simply say that heres a good picture of the top of the hill which our building sits at. This is in the neighbors building and our building here. If you consider that on a horizontal level field the neighbors building is much taller than ours. Its a 4,000 square foot building. We are proposing 75 of that area so its an exempteration exaggeration to say that our building is that large. There is no basis for the appeal of the categorical exemption or delay of our project. We did everything we can to meet the neighbors concerns while meeting
Up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant with a pound representative and at this time, without objection will move forward and allow the appellant representative to speak. Good afternoon. Im the appellant dr. Robert harris. Ill start with health issues. The Planning Commission did not properly apply the following sections of the planning code. Section 303, condition [inaudible]. When not be detrimental to the Health Safety or welfare of persons right residing in this vicinity. In response to this, the final motion to the height and bulk of the building accessibility, landscaping, they did mention preventing emissions. Just fine, but smoking has been prohibited since 1980s. By this conditional use, we are referring to the unhealthy effects of the [inaudible]. The cigarettes [inaudible] e cigarettes containing nicotine and the [inaudible] in the basement. In 2008 the board of so supervisors unanimously passed and that the fine tobacco to [inaudible]. The language disorder and su