60 foot building this will the permit holders will be here fighting this agency theyre marketing thing that those embarcadero views so their somewhat disingenuous on this but the point it if this is approved there will be a 200 and 40 foot wall that refers to staff from the waterfront it is not stepping down so it is in our hands you know if you want to approve that kind of a first step i think were take another look at developers rendering but it clearly does fit in with the other buildings adjacentheoh the other buildings adjacentofi with the other buildings adjacenttfit in with the other buildings adjacent fit in with the other buildings adjacent these are problems theyve brought on themselves the address a 45 howard it fronts theyre calling this the rear and nobody has said anything about this this building it is up begins in Office Building this is the rear of the building thank you. Thank you. Commission. I think one comment to i think that bothers me i appreciate very, very much
Appellate annual s block in the right of it and has four stories and were filling in the gap and. Consistent with the planning code and design guidelines. This sketch here briefly this shows where we started the project with a three story front and here we took away the three story front and setback the top two stories to in consideration of views of our neighbor to the west who is completely in support of this project. Here you can see from the rear of the project this is 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
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
President breed and honorable supervisors. I am a [inaudible] engineer and geotechnical engineer in the state of california. I have over 45 Years Experience in practicing geotechnical engineering. My practice has been performed in the San Francisco bay bay particularly San Francisco. I am familiar with the soil and rock conditions of the [inaudible] under consideration right now. My presentation here right now is based on my review of Technical Report prepared by [inaudible] technical Consulting Engineers prepared in 1999 for several houses down on green street. It was reported that a massive [inaudible] within a cut behind the neighboring house. Based on the findings of the report it appears that the surface condition can be filled. The landfill below the fill the site can be [inaudible] sand stone and shale bed rock of the formation. It is my opinion that the site could be unique depending on the degree of weathering and decomposition and sometimes could not be easily exvacated shove
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