Stay updated with breaking news from James bwogi. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
reporter: we have some changes coming in this way we will see them for at least a few days there is a live look at the golden gate bridge on the monday morning where jelly went to clear skies out there this morning temperatures of once a fairly comfortable once again right now san francisco 51 degrees of a 47 san jose good morning to you you at 49 degrees. concord 45¢ a roll the you re coming in at 43 degrees we have a little bit of fall out their blessings of fog of for some parts of the note that the visibility not too bad right now 6 mi. an santa rosa. reporter: 94 as a folk. sfo we re looking at generally a lot of fifties and we will sit widespread 60s by 11:00 for this morning and by late this after no mention of 60s and also some 07 these-the livermore and south bay here is a look to higher highs bird down for this monday afternoon year highs will average 07 is for sunnyvale since the nine essentials that upper 60s in livermore the sponsor getting into the ....
floor plans, at what levels they would be. it looks like they are showing it as you stated only the adjacent light wells are only on the third floor, which at the adjacent or the dr or the appellants can best address that. but my assumption is it. you made the comment about the light wells, and i was just reflecting on that because i thought that the building on the left was only two stories. it is, correct. yeah. it is only two stories. let s go back to the issue of most of this existing structure and by the way commissioners, you were here. i was here. i was thinking about that. yeah. and the, and it was a mess. it was a total mess, usually i think that i tried to find some things the way that i can offer some suggestions, but that one was impossible. but, the existing walls which are under the two phases and it is own partial, the planning department is saying that those have to remain? as you stated that this is a mess, the work that was done ....
which are under the two phases and it is own partial, the planning department is saying that those have to remain? as you stated that this is a mess, the work that was done was done prior to section 317 of the planning code, and which regulates the demolition, and the staff, and in reviewing this, and the initially they had filed for the section 317 review but the staff reviewed calculations provided by the project sponsor which led them to determine that if they retained those walls, that it would not be classified as a demolition under the planning code and looking at the plans anew, i have the concerns about that determination, but also i have concerns about how we deal with something like this over all, where the work and everything was done, and i mean that it is, and if it is demolished it is demolished and it is gone and it can t be replaced that, how do we subject it to the code requirements which they became effective after it was demolished and i don t have ....
actually live in the neighborhood believe it or not and i see this building when you drive up between folton and it is an eye sore and it has been there because of this mess that we call it. and we have these scenarios and i have only seen this and this is about the third one in 15 years that i have seen where we have had this unlawful demolition hearing and it is, pretty, it is a nightmare for everyone concerned and it is a nightmare for the dbi staff and the planning staff and the obviously the people that own the property because they get this five year ban and then they can t and they have to decide if they want to put back what they had there originally and one of the cases actually did that on 46th avenue and got out of the process and about a year and a half and did not end up with their 3 or 4 story building. and there is another one on 27th avenue and sat vacant for five years as well and what i am leading up to is whatever process, we decide on, and i don t th ....
as you stated that this is a mess, the work that was done was done prior to section 317 of the planning code, and which regulates the demolition, and the staff, and in reviewing this, and the initially they had filed for the section 317 review but the staff reviewed calculations provided by the project sponsor which led them to determine that if they retained those walls, that it would not be classified as a demolition under the planning code and looking at the plans anew, i have the concerns about that determination, but also i have concerns about how we deal with something like this over all, where the work and everything was done, and i mean that it is, and if it is demolished it is demolished and it is gone and it can t be replaced that, how do we subject it to the code requirements which they became effective after it was demolished and i don t have a clear answer for you, other than i think that this is a bit of an unusual circumstance. and it will be appreciate ....