Page 9 - District Jackson News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

That this is part that was offered to bank for the storage fee. And they are readily available and all of that is being asked that they get paid back for the storage fees and so, it seems like a complete waste to throw the stucco up on a Historic Building which may are may not be bank owned rye now. But i would hate to lose what is not just part of that block, but part of the whole atmosphere of what is a San Francisco lawyer, to be a montgomery street lawyer is a status of prestige and to start throwing up stucco is devastating. I have my business cards available for anyone who wishes to know...

The reduced size of the roof deck and the substantial set back provided from the edges of the building, the new roof top additions appear to be minimally visible and will not result on the additional impact on the roof. Based on the reveal of the proposed drawings and the specifickations it plans to meet it for the article plan for the following reasons and that the use of stucco finish is appropriate given that the building was finished in stucco prior to 1958 as documented in for by the photographic evidence and as evidenced in the analysis of the bricks as well as the existence of other str...

Raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. It should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. The project was received an exemption at that time. The current proposal is a slight modification. Includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. The current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to fi...

Slight modification. Includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. The current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to finish construction that was started by the previous owner, and it will not remove additional historic fabric from the building. This will replace the historic fabric that was previously removed with the compatible replacement material to bring back the building and still convey the building as a resource. As such the department has found that the proposed work meets the standards and the requirement of ...

Raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. It should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. The project was received an exemption at that time. The current proposal is a slight modification. Includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. The current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to fi...