hotel. and 3 hundred and 50 residential units and all laid out in a manner that meets the guidelines that govern mission bay. we think there are a number of governing policy reasons to support the project. first and foremost it will connect all the areas. second it will finally deliver a hotel to mission bay. we've got investors and a two hundred 50 room hotel with residential with retail and

parking is both viable and attractive. third our project will trigger the construction of park p-3 which is a beautiful stretch of waterfront paperwork that is a missing link in the network of parks in mission bay. and fourth it will deliver frankly unaccepted resources for affordable housing. under the block one it delivers affordable housing project and notwithstanding mission bay south doesn't provided any direct or on site affordable housing. we agreed to have a combination of fourteen percent on site which is at a value of more than

$18 million and finally the project is going to generate new benefits and creates hundred of not just construction jobs but permanent jobs as well. for all those reasons we'll quite proud to have earned the support of s f traffic and the san francisco building trades and the amendments which are before you have banish unanimously approved by the citizens advisory committee and the oversight board. concurrent with those amendments we've been working with the agency on the major phase application. it was approved by the successor

agency. this document in the structure of mission bay is primarily focused on establishing the ground rules for the site plan. but that document also included some cites specific guidelines. we have not gotten to architect on this site but the guidelines that were included will play a very important role in guiding our work as we move beyond that. so in order to give you a little bit advice on this i'm going to invite my colleague up. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm

bernard. i'm want to take you through the principle that are guiding the planning of this block. as was explained to you the site has 2 had the 17 acres. it is a prominent location. this has led us to create a plan you've seen we feel that resolves the complexity of the geographic area. we'll have the height and massing requirement and worked with the planning staff to develop the principles that are fundamental to the organization of this site. we have developed a massing that

clearly distinguishes what are the 3 distinct products on this site. almost a city block

the parking garage and almost like a small mountain of surface that cascades down to the park along the channel. and this is our actual connection of top grateful of the park and the additional park that will be generated in the center of the block. this provides light and air for

the unit that face the exterior. there's an opening this links them that is actually what straits the buildings. and that different parcels and the gaps between the parcels that allows the air to flow and the light to come in. it is that zone coincidings with the access to the hotels. the hotel iss has a corner volume and there's a second volume that rotates. it is that gap that takes the view from the hotel all the way out to the park but also connects the uses within the building. that summarizes the main

components. probably the most fundamental principle is that the buildings are loin with the sidewalk and the streets are activated with hotel lobby and the building lobby and the restaurants that occur the two ends have outdoors diane and the parks along the canal. there's a lot of open space here as you can see. particle fortunately to the park we're creating a park at the center of the project. the fact that we have a strong street wall will hopefully create on atmosphere that is more like the rest of san francisco and mission bay with activity along the pedestrian pathways that surround the building.

architecturally we're trying to show you the intent to create a architectural structure that is to, in fact, contrast with each other so it looks like an extension of the city. thank you very much >> thank you any additional staff presentation? >> opening it up for public comment if there's any. >> public comment is close. >> i'm very supportive this make total sense. i agree with mr. cowen. he determined that a large hotel is not be feasible on that site. this give us the opportunity to break up the lot.

will they precede as 3 separate lots >> for the record michael cowen legally we're going subdividing the lots and for the hotel it's quite different but i will say we have

the hotel lobby and it functions so i can point out to you that two corners are the hotel there's actually space loan the channel street between the hotel and the second lobby. but along the park between the

two restaurants at the corners is residential on the ground floor and up. so the retail is really assessable for the cars along the streets and the phases with the two restaurants facing the parks >> i'm very supportive thank you. >> i just wanted to add that one of the possibilities and opportunities this project represents looking at it in the of what's happening on the third street. one of the things we're concerns about we've talked about is making sure we activate third street and mission bay is not activated. the primary street been fourth street but if we could get this

block of third street activated. so both developers have agreed to provide activation along this street >> thank you. >> yeah. for project sponsor it appears we'll have no less than 389 thousand secret. the old retail count was really part and particle with the banquet style. we're commented at the planning departments request bringing the hotel here sort of demands that you equate all the street frontage with active retail. the water park is a different story by bringing the utilities

e units right down to the street front we'll are wrapping that site with retail and you end up with about 25 thousand square feet of retail >> the one thing is retail serving retail so i think that will really help matters. and the hotel is at the junction of the north end. it looked a little bit different from different views >> you'll see it's at corn the 3 and channel street. >> oh, i misspoke.

>> that was important for us one it anchor the site. there will be an opportunity to have a connection across the podium and that orientation mate a lot of sense and gave us the opportunity to have that front edge on both third and channel. and the other large building is with retail in it and a blend in the other >> yeah, the a paradox is a mix of a suicide foot poumd with retail on the bottom and then at the lower end of the triangle is a 60 foot. this allocate the high and low

rise their descriptive in that view >> i appreciate the analysis including you're showing what that is. somehow a 5 hundred room hotel sounds like somewhat outdated. so the smaller sized hotel we'll see the power of the waterfront housing is quite beautiful. i think a single large hotel will do the opposite of connecting the channel housing to mission bay. the one thing we're not talking about is we'll hope you'll continue to work with the seawall and everything this is happening there particularly this might interfere with the

openness and call your next witness the open in essence your project is doing. i hope that will be a mature

>> conspires were on say regular calendar for amendments to the planning code could establish the commercial district. please know this the relating an approval with modifications. >> hi. the item before you is a ordinance that seemed familiar to you with on order to approve on november of last year,

however, supervisor reed took over the sponsorship and modified. after this gentleman speaks i'll take the opportunity to thank the specify and her office for working so closely with our office. thank you >> good afternoon legislative aid to supervisor breed. i'd like to thank everyone for working with us to colonel. i have comments that relate both the item 11 and 12. i'll offer those now. our office didn't promote that under taking the legislation was borne out of the community and

particle the merchants wanted a more tolerated zoning structure. they encourage more active and appealing agricultural. it's an important part of the plans to create vibrant corridors. the district runs 12 plain clothes from hate to farrell at the fte. it's home doing to businesses and my personal favorite restaurants. the legislation permits certainty buildings with no prior residential use.

it removes the alcohol restricted use districts and preservers the districts in the mc d. it maintenance the pay day loan c, d, and this allows for more active ground uses. this was introduced about a year ago. the commission recommend it would modifications. we've incorporated those he moepgsz. it is before you again, however, i will elaborate here in a second supervisor bred has decided not to continue with this project she want the

outlining process in your packet. the original reiterate shuns files 120796 included retail abandons. supervisor reed is trying to foster communities. we've had tremendous success. however, after consultation with the staff and the community we've erected elected to revise those. this is against retail formula uses. if there's a manifest use for the need then the formula

retails should are considered. supervisor reed understand this will meet their needs without fighting the same battles against those retailers who don't meet their needs. of a followeral retail ban they'll have such as applying for use they will have to have meeting with the neighborhood. number two have the planning commission pay particular attention to the community groups. number 3 codified an election process should that staff only recommends a need for the use.

number 4 incorporate recent developments such that planning department will recommend 20 percent approval if the radius is already formula assess use. we believe those will be more reflect active of those plans. we thank you for your consideration. a and i have a few more comments. with the staffs recommendation of the approach they supported requirement or spipgs stipulation one has a notice and with respect to number 2 but with the conditional use the staff supported this to be a

criteria and not a weighed criteria unless it's on a citywide basis. i defer on that. our office would prefer if we having had a to look at the criteria for aclu. with respect to the codifying of staff that would be done on the basis of subjective criteria. we would like to work with staff to see if we have an idea of disproval. with respect to item 4 incorporating planning within 3

hundred foot footage we agree on that as well >> so in conclusion those nc d ordinances they will serve the resident and merchants and the supervisor is happy to oversee the provisions on their behalf. the reason we didn't want the folks to come down we didn't want to have them close their businesses to come down here and talk about this so i'm here to do that. i'm happy to answer any questions

>> thank you conner. as mentioned earlier we have from hate to the other streets. the rest of my presentation will be on the changes to the ordinance. supervisor rooefd moved it to include all the providing provisions. it's in our packet. the staff agrees to the majority of the changes. however, our main concerns are over retail changes in one cd research citywide. staff is proposing that any change to the ordinance be made citywide. not concluding the c decoration ordinance staff is in the

process of reviewing two profrngz that would modify the dignifies but only in certain areas of the city. the staff wants to talk about the formula and we'll talk about the policy rather than the district by district approach. staff believes that placing greater emphasis would not weigh all the evidence. those maybe more important and the chart is the discretionary body for the issues. they consider all factors in making the decision. and unless there's an overall

need for the public it's a highly subjective criteria. we need someway to quantify the overall public support. supervisor reed has asked that if the commission adopt this as you recall it requires staff it brings it within 20 feet or more. this doesn't require the commission to disapprove the application they're still required to look at all the requirements it's only a staff recommendation to disapprove it. it's recommendation with modifications that concludes my presentation and thank you very

much for your time >> thank you. opening it up inform public comment if there's any arrest public