Proposed 555 Washington's Shadow at noon on March 21st
Once again, sundry San Francisco tower and 555 Washington lovers take note:

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who wrote the measure [to strengthen the City’s 1984 Sunlight Ordinance], told The Chronicle on Wednesday that he planned to pull it from the June ballot after receiving a letter from Newsom that called for a thorough analysis of the impacts that planned skyscrapers and other projects would have on sunlight in parks and public spaces.

We’re saving the “Show Me The Study!” headline for our follow up.
From The Shadows They Start To See The Light [SocketSite]
Scoop: Transbay Interactive Map (And New Transit Center Website) [SocketSite]
Proposed 555 Washington Street Project: Comments And Responses [SocketSite]
Compromise averts showdown over S.F. shadows [SFGate]
Hardship, Shadows And Rail Making Their Way Towards June Ballot [SocketSite]

15 thoughts on “Supervisor Chiu Sees The Light (At Least For Now)”
  1. Good. After he pulls it he should shred it, burn the little pieces of paper, then forget he ever came up with this nonsensical idea.

  2. Another measure that didn’t make it through: forbidding clouds over the city that create much of that shadow. There was not enough budget (aka debt) to move the City to the Atacama Desert.

  3. David Chiu seems like a sensible guy despite being very liberal
    If nothing else he is respectful of others which is progress

  4. This is great news … but also a needed warning shot across the bow of Planning. Community input keeps highlighting LIVABILITY in these neighborhood plans, and the Planning Department’s practice is to ignore the intent of the LIVABILITY sections of these neighborhood plans.
    This should emphasize that the Supervisor who takes over for Chris Daly in District 6 MUST be familiar with Land Use and Planning … that automatically disqualifies Theresa Sparks, Jane Kim, and most of the other 20 announced candidates. Jim Meko and Debra Walker are the only two familiar with this stuff …

  5. Chris Daley was very familiar with land use and planning when elected, from his work with the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition– in fact, it was his anti-development and anti-gentrification work that got him elected. And yet, Daly was responsible for the deal that got us One Rincon. So I disagree with jamie’s criteria for disqualifying candidates.
    Familiarity with planning issues is important, but so is common sense and the ability to work constructively with others. It will be interesting to hear Sparks, Walker, Meko, Kim, et al debate the future of development, and well as addressing homelessness, crime, parks, health care, and especially budgeting to pay for these.

  6. High-density residential development near the jobs center and public transit in a city limited to 49 square miles …. the functionality of One Rincon HIll makes perfect sense to me. Planning and land use have a big impact on all of the other issues you mentioned …. Knowledge of planning and land use is THE criteria for the next District 6 candidate because with the exception of Hunters Point/Bayview, SoMa and Treasure Island are portions of the City in the pipeline to see the biggest changes.

  7. All of the supervisors should be experts or become experts on planning, because the Board of Supervisors ultimately makes so many of the planning decisions.
    However, the candidates who have the strongest opinions of planning aren’t always the ones who will make the best decisions.
    Chris Daly opposed most high density housing, but not the one that was least popular among San Franciscans (for marring the skyline) but which paid off his allies with $$$.

  8. This measure was about one thing and one thing only: Nancy Shanahan (Mrs. Aaron Peskin) decided to hate the tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid and David Chiu, Aaron’s lapdog, put this on to please his patron. All the pius statements about the Planning Department slipping things through is absurd – they level of detail of study, with computer simulations on minor house additions, 12 hours/day in all seasons, is simply astounding.
    The fact is, the original ordinance, was poorly written by Sue Hestor, a lawyer, without ever consulting with an architect, and equally penalizes a 15 minute shadow over 1% of a park at 7 am on December 21 and a 4 hour shadow on June 21. The Planning Department has been extremely diligent in studying shadow impacts.
    Chiu is just trying to cover his behind on this one. But be diligent – the NIMBYS are looking for every excuse to make this San Francisco Yesterday.

  9. I don’t get it. Why is everyone so adamantly in favor of the 555 Washington Street project? It’s too big and it’s in the wrong place. I mean…that’s really obvious.
    Seriously, folks, if the people with the billions keep plopping down these condo-monstrosities wherever the money wants, there just won’t be anything left of the real San Francisco. That, too, is obvious.

  10. What is real to you is not what everyone thinks is real.
    I think its the perfect size and complement to the TAPY and endows the city with a larger park.
    Keep in mind, an evil greedy developer built the housing you live in.
    Stop trying to force the rest of the city to subscribe to your personal vision of SF.

  11. “Seriously, folks, if the people with the billions keep plopping down these condo-monstrosities wherever the money wants, there just won’t be anything left of the real San Francisco. That, too, is obvious.”
    “real San Francsico”! I love this one. Who do you think built “real” san francsico and what forces do you think brought this to pass? Just about everything in this city including the infastructure (Hetch Hetchy, the rail) was built because of individual greed, mostly to enhance proeprty values.
    What you are stating is not in the least obvious

  12. Redwood park next to Tranamerica tower is almost constantly shaded due to all the damn trees. If the City gets control of the park back can we please cut down those pesky non-native sunlight killers so we can have a little sunshine in the park?
    Seriously, why is shade a bad thing? And how are tree shade and building shade so different that we must ban one and subsidize the other?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *