Ways to address the incremental shadows that over time are alerting the quality of our city parks. But on the other hand im going to say this to the folks, the proponents of the potential ballot measure, i dont think that the ballot measure that is being circulated to halt this project is impossible. I think its very problematic. I think the ballot measure could seriously restrict appropriate development in the city as generated a lot of concern from a lot of different corridors. And while i understand the frustration that folks feel about the erosion of some park, i dont think that a ballot box war is productive at this moment. I also dont think years of litigation are particularly productive. So, it is my hope, it is my hope that we can avoid this in the coming days with a more reasonable compromise. I do understand there is a proposed settlement letter. I do hope that no progress can be made. I want to build a mexican museum. Ive told supporters of the museum im concerned that the s
On a policy level i have not opposed height in general throughout the city and especially in our district. We have very Tall Buildings in our district and just east of these buildings we have, you know, increased entitlements up to 600 feet for the paless hotel, a thousand tarot for transbay tower, 700 feet for 181 fremont. I think what is hardest for me is we didnt have any opposition to those increases in height which had significant shadow impacts throughout the city. ~ in chinatown and union square. ~ palace its hard, then, to say not this building. Why the Transit Center [speaker not understood], really across the street from the plan itself. I think given the fact that we are working on mitigation for open space type safety, it doesnt take care of everything, but i think it is certainly significant contribution to the neighborhood. It would be very hard for me to oppose the height increase for this project, but not for any other. And i think it is it important because theres so M
Payment, calculated at the exact same rate that they would have paid if they were in the transit City District plan. By residential Square Footage and Cultural Institution Square Footage. I think those are also positive improvements and things that i support as this Development Moves forward. You know, the height is a tough issues for me. On a policy level i have not opposed height in general throughout the city and especially in our district. We have very Tall Buildings in our district and just east of these buildings we have, you know, increased entitlements up to 600 feet for the paless hotel, a thousand tarot for transbay tower, 700 feet for 181 fremont. I think what is hardest for me is we didnt have any opposition to those increases in height which had significant shadow impacts throughout the city. ~ in chinatown and union square. ~ palace its hard, then, to say not this building. Why the Transit Center [speaker not understood], really across the street from the plan itself. I t
Where unlike many buildings that we see built particularly the more contemporary ones where we have these appendages off the side of buildings that are decks that sort of look like something that doesnt belong on the building. Mr. Birchels bays are combinations of bays and decks with the infold doors that allows it to become a deck at such time as you wish to have it open to the outdoors. The rest of the time its a bay, and in both instances it looks perfectly appropriate for the building. So i think those are some of the things that i see. I am not opposed to letting this rest for a few more weeks. We do not have to take it up in early january, but certainly i would like the continued dialogue between the comment and community and the developer. This is appropriate use and i see nothing wrong with a building that develop these 27 units, brings 27 new families that will add vitality to the neighborhood. I think that is a very valuable improvement and we have been done the road about th