it developed in fits and starts throughout the years, budget sponsors returning modifications for entitlements, maintain commercial focus over the years. the central part of the site was developed in the early 1980's. throughout the 1980's and 1990's entitlement crowd -- plans were revived several times. bills were issued during the 1990's. in the mid-2000 + the northernmost property residential development pursuers, at roughly the same time, approach the city with a desire to do residential development. the department was in the midst

of its eastern neighborhood planning efforts, honing new controls that encourage the creation of vibrant, mixed use urban neighborhoods. they agreed that the fresh developments here were worthwhile effort. the two property owners applied for environmental review and general plan amendments. together the sponsors developed a vision and introduced high- density mixed use housing for a mixed use the network. the new development envisioned at the site could allow up to

1600 dwelling units and 70,000 square feet of retail. other facility uses, including a new, open street network. we begin this last iteration of planning in 2006 with project sponsors holding a couple of initial workshops with at the community regarding the framework of the plan. environmental was kicked off in 2000 summer -- sorry, 2007. it took longer than anticipated because of changing circumstances on the ground. as this was happening, staff suggest that -- adjusted aspects of the project in response to community input.

outreach was conducted separately. staff conducted a final round of outreach reporting planning documents with the three notices of planning hearings before the commission. one before you, three decision makers to provide them with an opportunity to hear from the community directly. all of which were approved unanimously. items for your consideration, as i said, they are the general plan amendments. i will go over each of them.

the general plan amendments to address the existing area. the revised area planned just reinforce what is already on the ground. a new set of objectives for the office park. our only focus are on the office parks questions. within a park subarea as originally established in 1985, memorialized as office of new development with commitments to other maps and indexes. there is a new network of streets that creates a hierarchy in the urban design character.

creating a new open space and pedestrian at work that recognizes those facilities existing. the planning code amendments would create a special use district specific 2 executive park, including controls for active uses in public streets and open spaces, accommodating section changes. zoning calls for a variety of different heights and procedures for design review. limited to a conditional use, tailored more toward design and similar to what we see downtown. the special use district

memorializes the policies in the sub-area plants, code of flying out of this section can be broken into smaller blocks and development. open space provisions require each phase of development space in each building. the last item before you is a map amendment that we find subject to residential mixed use designations and the executive part special use this for it. similarly, we are creating a special type of district in the area. supervisors, our recommendation to you is approval on all of these items.

the items here are to be answered if you have any questions. supervisor wiener: i did have a question about the open space. but did not see in the legislation have it would be used over time. would there be open public access for that space? >> the public open space has been that long time component in the vision for executive park. improvements largely suggest protected and the cultivated native vegetation. but there is a facility it has been trailed and maintain despot's public with cecil and

it would not even have an impact based on the brief entitlement. >> i have several questions. my understanding is that the planning commission weighed in rather specifically about the issue of tower placement. can you please walk us through this issue a little bit? >> yes. ok. so. in the packet that was forwarded to you, there were three towers designated at three very specific sites. one of the towers in the most western portion along the freeway are near up slope.

commissioners were concerned over several aspects of this. the effect on the corridor as you go southward, there was a sense that the towers were two evenly spaced. also there was concern about the quality of the units for that project. they felt strongly that one tower should be moved farther to the east. the environmental impact had not kind of described that possibility and it was what they chose to do within that resignation. they've raised the recommendation as there were no additional environmental effects.

the tender -- the time between now and then, that work has been done. and then i think that before you is some change language by an each of the three ordinances. first of all, recognizing the new addendum. most significantly, there were changes -- excuse me, this is the wrong figure number. sorry. 26 3.27, on the revised ordinance before you is on page 12.

as this is heightening the block requirements for blocks 5 and 6. and then there is language throughout the ordinance that memorializes that change. staff are supportive and recommending you incorporate the changes into the ordinance before you. supervisor cohen: in terms of the proposed density, how does it compare to the other projects going on in the executive parking area >> specifically the density would be higher than before. clough but i think that is just

hard to measure density in land distribution. essentially would be urban design status. attempting to have most southern portions of the candlestick development commensurate with the approval for candlestick point, immediately to your east. i cannot say that it is precisely the same. there are slight nuances and differences. but that is what is approved. >> how tall are these towers? >> west to east, they are 170 feet to 100 feet, to 80 feet. >> they do not get taller? >> they go up and they come back

down. >> 170 feet. and as a vision they had a tower that was not a part of this proposal, just to give you a sense of what was already approved, otherwise it would be at 160 feet. in terms of density -- >> in terms of density can you talk about a project in the shipyard area? >> it is commensurate what we have with candlestick.

they have an office park. hunters point shipyard north is bound by the same scale as executive part. they have roughly two towers. by think that they were up to 200 feet, 250 feet. >> in terms of proposed height, where was the starting point for staff in developing this proposal? >> i came into this after it began. supervisor cohen: me to. >> essentially it was the same scale as they have now. three towers.

project sponsors will probably be able to tell me more definitively. it had been within 240 feet. three other buildings were popping up about 85 feet. that is when we started calling things towers. 13 stories, other parts of the site were slightly different. some of them were lower. we did purchase additional height. just so that we could capture the density we had been talking about. we also thought that it would be a good move as it was such a wide street without a tall building lot, we thought it was important to introduce a border within the neighborhood and the public realm.

>> -- supervisor cohen: can you talk about the future tower height and how it reflects next to those proposed? >> originally analyzing what was before the commission, the tower that was most westward with riot against affected of park west on the freeway. the tower would simply move about one block east toward,

clearing some of the view shared and moving slightly eastward. it does bring two of the towers together by in terms of urban design. >> what is the proposed unit mix for the project? >> i will tell you that as a part of the special use district there is a provision that requires it to meet requirements. generally requiring 40%, it is consistent with what we have done in other areas. it is up to sponsors to decide the next and best myths for the market.

it is pretty consistent. >> 60% was left? >> could be one-bedroom or studio. supervisor cohen: is undefined? undetermined? >> the typical is at least two. the other 60% could be what it needs to be. >> -- supervisor cohen: do you know how many three-bedroom apartments? >> three-bedroom? >> you may know the answer. >> i do not. supervisor cohen: we will make a note of that. >> all right. supervisor cohen: can you walk

us through the proposed transportation enhancement? >> this is what we're doing with that the street network. the existing site is essentially a 15 acre parking lot. we are introducing a new street grid that will offer easier access and a better filter in of who is coming and going on cars. that is the big transportation move. the other part of epic that we are anticipating is bus rapid transit establish through the large project. we are anticipating not

developing self in the district so that you have that extra space in the bus rapid transit facility. as part of the executive part, it will be enhanced as part of their approvals that, in, established as part of the litigation monitoring approval program adopted one month ago. supervisor cohen: colleagues, i wanted to make sure -- see if you have any questions. >> i know that the county transportation authority is working with san mateo to improve transit from that sector of the southeastern part of the city. >> that is one of the other mitigation measures to

participate in the study, making a fair share to the contribution in the facilities- coming out of the study. supervisor cohen: what is the implementation and the mechanism for proposed transportation improvements? >> in terms of the street grid, one of the vacation measures is we are requiring that to be improved as buildings, in. without a definitive knowing of the phases of the buildings that, in, we do have a requirement that the street grid. that each development and building side, according to the. and design guidelines, that they be operable by the time of the

buildings are ready for occupancy. supervisor cohen: talking about the past in san francisco, as there always been a flexible strategy that is customary? >> this is a slightly different case. the thing that distinguishes this project is that this is not in a redevelopment project area. it is not as if the city is the developer. but at this point what is before you are the regulations to realize the framework we have set up. and supervisor cohen: in the city's best interest it seems we

should have a stroke -- selling strategy for implementing the changes. transportation is a regional issue that the city and county are dealing with. sounds like it is a bit weak in terms of implementation strategy. i do not mean to put you on the spot, but these are people's lives. we are building a community. >> we did not have anyone from mta here today to talk about transportation and implementation. as you pointed out, it was county work and a freeway interchange with future plans and the phasing in that matt was referring to. this area is nested in the middle of a lot of large-scale

movements and it is not clear, exactly, when those things will phase in. we do not know, exactly, when some of the transportation things will come in. this party has been designed to respond to end accommodate those things. the wearing in is not specifically cleared. the improvements in transportation connection there will be a function of the buildup of candlestick point and how that happens as part of that agreement with the city. hazmat talked about, these street improvements and cite specific improvements, which are improving the interchange function connected to this area, they will be phased in as buildings within executive park take place. is sort of a state and regional question.

of course, the how and when their work develops, we do not know exactly either. because this is a private project that is not in redevelopment, we do not have the city public on this realizing this stemming from this project. except for the transportation management command enhancements. other programs that have been doing that will be enhanced and internalized within the executive park. it is within the control of the operations. >> it gets complicated as you are dealing with longer-term

movements and projections. we could probably talked to all our friends at mta can get more information. supervisor cohen: that is part of the reason why i am asking these questions. these questions have been raised for meat. people watching in the comfort of their home, they would also be concerned with the transportation plan. knowing that there is a lot of san francisco that will become a major transportation hub, not just entering in, but carrying people down the corridor into the valley. just getting a dialogue to have this conversation is important. as we continue to move this project along, people are aware

that this project remains flexible and that there are opportunities for transportation needs, as you eloquently put it, i wanted to extrapolate this from the planning department. >> the planning department was very concerned about those issues. there have been a lot of changes happening as candlestick came into play as well. there is a lot of large movement. entitlements might be in place, but we are not talking about entitlements now. we are talking about the zoning fight -- framework. even given that, the way that the market has been the sluggishness in the market, the time frames for these budgets become speculative.

supervisor cohen: that segues into my next series of questions. , and up, matt. [laughter] you are back on -- come on up, matt. you are back on. >> but we do in every downtown fraud to a and we will be notified but a public hearing. the key difference is we are so -- assuming that the use in itself is a common data by the planning code and that we will no doubt on issues of design, there are criteria within an

with design guidelines that are tailored to an incentive for 309 is the review process. community members working in community groups will be notified and will have an opportunity to weigh in as they consider each incumbent. supervisor cohen: good answer. this next question has to do with public benefits. how should the delivery be approved? >> mostly we have talked about the dedication of much of the land. technically it will the public