Page 15 - Development Specific News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Golden gate commons, they incorporated the land from the tennis and swim club as part of the project. I have the plans that i dont know if anyone has really looked at since the Planning Department found the files for me a couple months ago. The plans for a conditional use and pud. They all have exhibit a plans, every single one of them and that is a definition of what you do. And so you have to look at the plans as well as the resolution to find out what they did. And the plans that are here and i have copies for the committee that i can pass out include the site of the tennis and swim club as...

But no vote taken to grant the request on the basis there were invert errors on the part of the department back to where i upper before and unless theres further deliberations. This is for the same case were going to hear. Its up to you commissioners, if you grant the jurisdiction request mime recommendation you continue the next case so the two matters can be heard together. Id soon as not continue the case we have it calendared and agendized lifestyle to make a decision when were in the room. To a point of the distinction theres a point of the validity of the permit on appeal. Understood. Ok...

Certainly would not be unusual for the board to change the reflection of whats there. I presume its around 45 feet. From your perspective the department would be okay with that if that would happen . Absolutely. Okay. You are saying because the redevelopment plan expired years ago and because we didnt know that here at the board of supervisors, we wouldnt have known to protect whats the height limit at that time. It popped up and that is what gave your department the justification for the recommendations that you made three 3 years ago that we up zone this site from 84 feet by 60 percent. Too ...

We referred to the existing zoning limit was 275, but the actual project proposed conformed with the overall massing of that district. The taller building was adjacent to the 275 foot tower and the lower buildings. I understand from one direction it was 275. What im trying to point out and what was pointed out by these documents is the height would have been accurate it would have been more like 40 feet, so it would have been a different argument coming from a different direction. Yeah. All im saying that adjacent to the 45 foot building, the proposed development was less than 45 feet. Okay. I...

Dpws position that despite the fact they concede that the permit was properly granted under the older smf order they found it will not income mode the sidewalk but at t is not in compliance with the new recollections the reality as of today dpw has not issued the new rules and regulations three weeks over the deadline the Department Remains in violation of ordinance i you dont think its fair or legal to deny my clients permit because it hadnt followed the rules and regulations because its not been recorded a few general points b about general activity its true that generally speaking as a matt...