Discuss how to approach next season and work out what competitions we will do and go from there. Thats all from sportsday. Back to you now. Tonight sees the announcement of building of the year the stirling prize for architecture. Last year, the award went to the bloomberg building, a huge Office Development in london that cost more than a billion pounds. But this year, the bookies favourite is very different, a small estate of Council Houses in norwich. And there are five other amazing buildings in the running. Lets ta ke lets take a look at all the nominations now. Platform six and seven. I would nominations now. Platform six and seven. Iwould much nominations now. Platform six and seven. I would much rather work here than the old station it is just lovely. The roof is a piece of art in itself. You cannot see it from the outside at all, you enter the building and this remarkable space is revealed. We have something which is almost like an artwork that has come out of the ground. Was
Office growth. Its not at all connected to or analyzing the pipeline that we already have. Because we know that there are very large projects that are jumping all over each other to try to take whats available under prop m which is expected to at least in the next few years, in the near term, be a lot higher than much closer to the full prop m. I think the challenge we have now is having enough, year over year, because theres way more than the 950,000 that we have available. So i want to be clear the analysis is not connected to the actual pipeline that is existing now. Its based on the past and tends to be a long term forward look assuming the citys economy is as favorable as its been over the past 20 years for office. And to the extent that we bump into the prop m limit, the impact of projects being infeasible above that limit or rendered infeasible by this increase would not have any impact. They would simply be punted into the next year or at some future point when Market Condition
Is usually included by, excuse me by the permit holder. I didnt see that either. Lastly in the last page of their submission they show various sites that they attempted to look out, i presume, but they provide very Little Information there. The code says something about good faith efforts. When so many puts on the table that there was no interest. I have no idea whether that is a good faith effort, or not. I need to see these things before i make a final decision. I would be happy to respond. My understanding, the first item you brought up was our compliance with the Design Guidelines and preservation review. Did i understand that correctly . Historical review. I can respond to that. This is not within the webster street historic district. It is immediately adjacent to the district which was established in 1981. This property was not included. It is a category d building for our preservation standards. Included in the report is a ceqa exemption which is signed by our Historic Preservat
The past several months. I really want to thank all those for coming out for my colleagues on this committee for listening and asking some very pointed questions, especially about the trees and parking. And with that, i would like to move the amendments, i believe you have a copy first on the sud. Do you all three have copies of those amendments . We do, supervisor. Thank you. Well, i cant move since im not a member of the committee. But i would ask somebody on this committee would be so kind to do so. So that would be as to the sud item number 4, uses that are not permitted that include auto service, driveup facility mortuary notwithstanding any other provisions, the uses that would require conditional use liquor stores, massage neighborhood agriculture. So those are the changes in item number 4 item number 5. Can we take a moment of time . We can take a moment of time. I make a motion to propose those amendments as read into the record. The only one you didnt read was the time, from
Praying always that there should be an implementation for this. Thank you. And congratulations to all of us. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Good evening supervisors. My name is christopher peterson. I strongly support finding new sources of revenue to fund Affordable Housing. Sounds like a substantial increase and this fee is appropriate. Im agnostic about what the exact amount should be. But i do think theres one factor that i havent heard discussed in this process. That its important for this and should be just a routine component of the analysis of other similar significant measures, which is Climate Change. This proposed fee increase potentially could play a beneficial role in the citys response for example by increasing supply of Affordable Housing in the city. It could potentially have negative consequences if its driving Office Developments to more automobileoriented areas areas that have more extreme climates that have Greater Energ