durand mira. >> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off before the proceedings, and before the meeting, if you'd like to speak, please fill out a speaker card. i'm going to take roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: first on your agenda

is items considered for continuance. [agenda item 1 read] [agenda item 2 read] [items 3-a and b read] >> clerk: furthe [agenda item 12 read] [agenda item 18 read]

>> clerk: i have no other items proposed for continuance, and i have no speaker cards. >> president melgar: thank you. do any members of the public wish to comment on items proposed for continuance? with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: move to continue the items as outlined by the secretary. >> president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. then on that motion to continue items as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us on your consent calendar. the matter listed hereunder tut constitutes your consent calendar. it may be considered by a single vote of the commission.

there will be no public vote unless it is removed from the consent calendar and considered at this or a future commission hearing. i have no speaker cards. >> president melgar: do any members of the public wish to comment on the item proposed for the consent calendar? okay. with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner ko commission commissioner koppell? >> vice president koppel: so moved. >> commissioner hillis: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. we have a motion to approve the

items on the consent calendar. [roll call] >> clerk: on the motion to adopt the minutes of april 20, 2019, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. item six, commissioner comments and questions. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: yesterday was a big day in sacramento in that sb 50 got out of committee, but it had a lot of amendments. looking at another presentation. i think it's a lot more quantifiable in that they actually set a number in the amount of units per parcel, so i think we can quantify what potentially can and can't be.

secondly, i was away for the easter break, and i was catching up on my reading, and the l.a. times caught my attention, housing rezoning could rezone all of palo alto. it says what it could be for l.a. and then, i was interesting to hear what richard roth stestei. he's quoted, "if that's all that done, it will increase opportunities for housing that can afford it." it doesn't include income opportunities for low-income african americans or low-income

in general. i thought that said a lot, coming from the source of what these equitable communities are all about. >> president melgar: commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: i wanted to give a shout out to mayor london breed, mayor's office of sustainability, office of the environment. they've been working with the cpuc to address issues like climate change and global warming, which is important to communities like us because we're surrounded by water. obviously, a lot of downtown buildings use a lot of energy but they don't have the option to cover their rooftops with solar because they have such a small lot. it's going to be interesting

how we make buildings energy efficient but we're going to do our part, so thanks to mayor breed. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> new york is going to start looking at all buildings green. the clue is to how san francisco will pick up on that. we have all of our rincon hill, all of potrero hill, to be fully glazed buildings, so we'll be looking for the director to take the lead on that. >> clerk: if there's nothing else, we can move onto item 7,

commissioner's announcements. >> commissioner richards: the two senators have combined efforts, and as i understand it, some of the provisions of sb 50 only apply to large cities above 500,000 or 600,000. bottom line is we'll get more information to you. that concludes my thoughts. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: yeah. i think it's counties with populations over 600,000, so that would exempt marin and sonoma, and i think the moniker was i heard it's a nimby bill, not in mcguire's back yard. >> clerk: if there's nothing

else, review of h.p.c. and land use. there was no h.p.c. yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. you heard this item on april 11 of this year and unanimously voted to approve. there was at least one speaker who expressed concern about the project and lack of parking. the committee held a hearing on the citywide historic resource survey. staff mainly focused on the work that's been done so far, noting 20% of the city has been surveyed. kate black of the historic

preservation committee spoke on the project. supervisor peskin, who called the hearing, also expressed a desire to move this process along more quickly. he asked his colleagues to keep this effort in mind during the budget process. as this was an action item, the item was filed. at the rules committee hearing this week, they considered the mayor's appointment of frank fung to the planning commission. that did result in support by the committee, and they'll consider that this week. and that concludes my report. >> clerk: if there are no questions, commissioners, i did not receive a report from the board of appeals. we can move onto public comment. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded

when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i did have two speaker cards. >> president melgar: okay. i have kevin hang and georgia sciutish. >> commissioners, my name is kevin chang. following up on the public comment about 3847 to 3849 18th street last week, staff requests the only thing from commissioner richards, i ask the department to at least look into what is there and what needed happen from a planning-permitting point of view. i urge the planning commission to please reconsider, given all the code violations outlined

last week. here are some building violations from the permitting point of view. serial permitting to disguise true scope, on page one. first permit to replace perimeter of existing crawl space and kind. next permit is to create new storage in the crawl space, and then third permit create the new crawl space into an apartment. a review showed there was more than 4 feet of excavation, no storage space, either existing or new, and work started before the permit was issued. work without permits, work beyond permits, are on page two. there are at least ten over the counter permits with minimal to no planning department review.

major work is done with over the counter permits, which even investigated during a complaint, the planning commission acknowledges that extensive work is done with permits and does not investigate further. even with numerous permits, case closed. planning department finally issued a warning to new staff: do not approve any over the counter permits. excessive work includes excavation and large renovation of the building. at least 17 inspections are performed throughout the project, and even with complaints to be investigated, no enforcement action is taken. not until planning code enforcement gets involved for the second time after having an issue declared no violation exists does anyone recognize that even the front and rear yard variances are missing and

necessary for the issued permits. how can this happen? the d.b.i. should investigate the full planning permit history and present it to the planning commission. without it, the planning commission will see less than half of what has happened. thank you for your consideration. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. chang. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. georgia sciutish. i have some handouts, and i'd like to follow up on the comments about the housing inventory from last week. i'm going to read you a quote, please. given san francisco's housing crisis, the city should preserve as many units as possible. the cost of building new units is significantly higher than renovating and preserving existing units. that's from page 4 of executive summary from requiring

mandatory discretionary review to remove unauthorized units in executive summary from june 2016. another quote, this is just a first step. ill not let our bureaucracy stand in the way of building more housing because we need more housing in san francisco. that's from mayor london breed just this past february 28 on the backlog of a.d.u.s and how a.d.u.s can be sped up to add to the housing. last week, i showed you a list of noe valley on page 63, the inventory, it's attached -- overhead. i just want to clarify that the units gained through alteration are -- were simple remodels. only one could have been a

demolition by my definition. the rest were all simple remodels that legalized a.d.u.s. the second list that's attached is a list i gave you last october, and it has a bunch of information about those projects that were sold in 2018, which is when this list from the inventory was -- 2018, and has this information about that. that's all i'll say. if you want to read it, you can. i do want to mention the atlantic article. i don't know if anyone saw that. and the thing in the context of this inventory report and what little snapshot i've looked at with noe valley in the last five years, if you look at the chart that shows which neighborhoods are technology employees buying, everything above noe valley is kind of interesting and some of it's a

little scary, so i can you sug look at that article. >> president melgar: thank you. miss sciutish? any other public comment? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just one comment. on the 18th street project, was it determined there was no planning code violations? >> i'm sorry. i don't have that. i'm asking them to check. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on your regular calendar on item 9. [agenda item 9 read] >> good afternoon, planning department staff. audrey butkus. the proposed project would place temporary use authorization under the supervision of the planning director and allow inspection of project sites by authorizing

certain interim activities at those development sites. [inaudible] >> -- commercial transit district or within the boundaries -- i'm sorry, within the area bounded by market, 13th street, division, and king street, a neighborhood, commercial, or a mixed-use district. the site must have submitted an application to permit -- i am sorry, demolition or tantamount to demolition of an existing structure. associated fees must have been paid for all developmental projects, and the residential density must be more than the

residential density existed on the site at both the land use application and permit application were submitted. all applications required for ceqa review must have been submitted, and the uses allowed under this t.u.a. would be as follows. any entertainment, arts, and recreation use, any arts activity use, any general entertainment use, any social service or philanthropic facility use, any agriculture or beverage processing bun use, any metal works permitted principlely or conditional in a p.d.-1-d. district. any use conditionally or principlely allowed in the current zoning district, and any office use if the office is less than 500,000 gross square

feet to be dedicated for arts activities or dedicated use. we did receive one e-mail on behalf of spur, and that was sent to you this morning. the e-mail was supportive of the ordinance. the department's recommended modifications are as follows: one, amend the requirement which mandates an increase to the residential density to instead require an increase in residential density only if there is existing residential on the site. staff recommends this amendment because instead of amendments serving as an nincentive to build housing, the temporary occupation of that space would be of benefit to the city. to be be eligible, the project must have already been approved

by the city. therefore, if the city determined a project to be desirable even if it does not create housing, require one project to be eligible for this t.u.a. does not make sense. our second amendment is clarifying language in section 205.5. we would suggest clarifying that use must fall under the retail sales and service use chart since we have several e uses in our planning code that are considered retail use. many of those are auto motive. during the process of redevelopment, the sites often become under utilized, unproductive, and vacant for long periods of time. that concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for questions.

thanks. >> president melgar: thank you very much. did we have another presentation from oewd or this is it? >> we do not. this is a mayor-sponsored ordinance, but they are not speaking here today. >> president melgar: okay. great. so we will now open this item up for public comment. comment come on up, please. >> thank you very much. my name is ben bleiman, and full disclosure, i'm president of the san francisco entertainment commission, but today, i'm speaking in my capacity as the chair of the california trade and music organization, which is a trade that represents musicians in san francisco, including performers and venues. today i'm speaking in support of this change, and i just want to say some comments. real crisis points are existing

right now, and i'm not sure everybody realizes it. artists, performers, musicians, they're leaving the city faster than they're coming, and we're at significant risk of losing the most cherished cultural aspects of the city that we have. we can't ignore the influence that this body and the planning department has on this issue. specifically, we are using a planning code that was designed at a time when we could consider entertainment a luxury -- or we had the opportunity of taking entertainment as a luxury in the city. that is no longer the case. we are at a real crisis, and we need to take immediate measures to preserve and promote real opportunities for performers

and artists to get paid and do their crafts. this legislation is obviously no silver difficult, but we are excited about the potential it has to make a real difference by activating public spaces that are being developed. it has real potential to give artists and performers paid gigs to enrich our lives. we urge you to vote this forward. just as a side note, when i talk about concerts, we're talking about high school brass bands, filipino dance troupes, chinese american dance troupes, everything in the rich culture of art in the city. so thank you very much. appreciate it. >> president melgar: thank you very much for your comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. peter papadopoulos. the last speaker's comments are a good segue to just some

comments. we think this could be very helpful. it has some components that could help activate our spaces, particularly as we're seeing more left vacant, but the question is what kinds of uses would come in. we would like to see that high school brass band win the bidding war somehow, so those are the solutions we'd like to see somehow integrated in this. there a component, a discretion by which those decisions could be made? i'm unclear, do those commitments have to be made or is it simply a permitting process that's open to the highest bidder once it's granted. it would make more sense from an economic standpoint if they were somehow connected, especially in certain areas where it's unclear to me also,

are permitted -- currently unpermitted uses potentially allowed? so for example, is office now a wide open version of office? [please stand by]

discussion. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. okay. with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a few questions. my first question is, i agree with wanting to expedite and find interim uses for these sites. my question is, why are we not focusing on uses that are of public benefit, for example, expediting the establishment of

home shelters? why is the definition of uses that broad? the second question i have is, why has it not been public outreach? this is a matter, if i understand you correctly, does not only address the area between 13th market division and king, but there is pointing to a map on page 3, which seems to imply that all colored areas would be affected and i may completely misunderstand that. if that is the case, we have very different neighborhood environments in those colored areas for those who don't have the colored picture in front of you, this is almost a city-wide issue. i recall a number of years ago, supervisor chu tried to find interim uses. the director may remember that. we talked about agriculture, community gardens, that's

disappeared. this is coming in with a slightly more difficult situation, because how do we guarantee, assuming that development that has its entitlement, is not just using interim use, one, to delay implementation for gain in the interim, and again, there are always bad actors. while the intention may be good, how do we prevent that from happening? i am also wondering why would this only be done under the sole direction of the director, particularly this again without notice of public hearing on this improvement is appealed and if the public doesn't know, how can they appeal? i believe it's dialogue between community, so interim use, in addition to the fact that this should probably be asked from all supervisors what is being

affected by this particular base. these are questions. they're not criticism. we want to broaden the input we get to wholeheartedly support it. thank you. >> president melgar: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: additional questions. if i'm starbucks and i want to open up a pop-up store three years and a building that applied for demolition, can i? it would be excluded? i guess the question i have is, the legislation would suspend all these planning code requirements, but it doesn't list them. that's why i ask the question. section 395, or whatever it is, really just try to understand what is in and out. >> sure, to give you an idea, section 205 which regulates all our temporary use permits, that section generally with any of those type of use permits that

already exist, whether it's a 24-hour permit or 1 to 2-year permit, they exempt you from the other planning code requirements because they're not considered a change of use, they're not considered a conversion to that use. but we do -- i just want to make sure it's kept in mind, these are always going to be, for this temporary use authorization, these are only projects where the building has been slated for demolition or tantamount to demolition. these are building not considered as desirable to occupy the space. they're going to be buildings that would need many improvements to host something like a high-end coffee shop for a period that is only guaranteed for three years. i just wanted to make sure that was kept in mind. and also to address commissioner moore's question about why the uses that are listed are so

broad. that kind of gets to that point as well. we want to make sure the spaces are activated. again, most of the time, honda site on van ness and market comes to mind and other sites along mid market, are kind of the ideal spaces to think about when thinking about the infrastructure that exists on the building and what kind of uses maybe would find that type of infrastructure desirable for a period of only three years. >> commissioner richards: do i have to have approved demolition permit or just applied? >> all permitting has to be approved. your ceqa and your demolition permit have to be approved. >> i'm a serial flipper, i get all my entitlements and i'm sitting and waiting and nobody is biting, now i have to mitigate the fact that nothing is happening, but -- i just hope

this doesn't push back further bad behavior. if some project was to be built there, but they're just flipping, it doesn't do us any good to have just a temporary use there. i understand the intent of this and i support it, but i'm looking through the reverse engineer to see what bad actors, how they could use this. >> sorry to interrupt, but those members of the public and staff standing in front of the doorway, you need to find a seat or move to the other side of the room. you can't stand around the doors at all. you have to find a seat or move to the other side of the room, please. >> president melgar: before i let you speak again, commissioner moore, i say that i really love this. i think that the discomfort is around the process, because we haven't seen it yet. we haven't seen the form, the criteria, all those things. so i think at some point it

would be great if you came back and let us know how the mechanics of this will happen. i tell you why i think it's great. i think it will have an effect on the surrounding commercial rents. and i think that if somebody can have a couple of years to do some uses or interim use, or they're waiting for the new space to be built out, you know, it will make it more likely that the vacant store fronts, we see so many around, will want to compete on a different level. i think that is a great thing. it will have a positive effect on commercial corridors that have a lot of vacancy, like the castro, like the mission. and you know, anything, there are costs and benefits to any public policy. and so, yes, is there a possibility for bad actors? i think there is. and that's why i think we're so interested in the process. but overall, i think this is the

right policy and i think it's a good thing. i work, you know, in a nonprofit in my day job. and there is an acute shortage of space for non-profits, especially arts, so i think this could potentially be something really great. so i thank the mayor and i thank you for putting all of the thought into it. and i look forward to hearing back from staff once you work out the process a little bit better. >> if you don't mind, i'm happy to come back with a detailed process, but because this is a new category of temporary use, we have a clear understanding of what the process will be for the permit. again, always happy to come back and explain it in more detail when we're getting into the implementation stages of this, but generally, to give you a preview, the temporary use is something where somebody comes in under our normal planning information counter, where they

would normally with a temporary use application, that permit would not be issued that day. it would be taken and routed to the planner, most likely the one who handled the original project application and from there we're verifying, whether it actually has received all of its permits and ceqa clearance and has paid all of the fees. and then, it would be issued for that initial three-year period and again, once that three-year period is about to expire and if it wanted to renew that temporary use, it would be filing an application to be reviewed by the director as to whether or not we found the use to be still appropriate or whether it was a use that was being abused in some way so the property did not start development and continued to make rental income off the temporary use. >> president melgar: thank you

for the clarification. i'm not as worried, because i think the economics of it don't make sense for high-end uses. if you're betting that you're just going to have it for a couple of years, no one is going to do that. so i think it's to the advantage of entertainment, uses that are not high-end or require a lot of investment to get up and running. >> commissioner moore: my question is, are you suggesting that you would put a little bit more meat on the bone here so that the questions we're raising are answered, are you intending to have further discussions on public outreach, are you intending to talk to other supervisors so everybody buys in, or are you expecting us as is to support the approval today? >> so the proposal itself was put forward by the mayor. this is not a department-sponsored ordinance.

as such, we were not planning on doing any other public outreach, but depending on your vote here today, aaron star, looks like he wants to speak. >> i would say this is the mayor's ordinance, so it's up to their office to do the public outreach. we evaluate and think it's a good policy so we're recommending approval. >> commissioner moore: if i may, there is policy -- i believe there is some detail missing or clarification on the policy, otherwise we wouldn't have asked questions. and commissioner richards and mr. papadopoulos, coming from reading what is in front of us. there is something amiss and that is detail that is not there. i would like to support the policy because i think it is good, except there is detail missing to clarify those corners where questions aren't answered. >> president melgar: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: on

page 4, eligible development site means a legal lot where an application has been submitted, not that one has been granted. >> sure. let me move over to the legislation itself. give me just one moment. >> commissioner richards: the other thing, if i may on that point, i think the way it's intended -- correct me if i'm wrong -- that the entitlements would have had to be granted and the -- >> commissioner richards: got it. i'm going to start -- i'm a startup and we -- we're in peoples' bedrooms and crowded and there is no light and no air and substandard -- if i wanted to do this and have some type of thing, 5,000 square feet and wanted to do another half at the same time some type of retail, can i do that as a for-profit

startup. >> if your startup was office space, you would need to be dedicating at least another 5,000 in that same building to arts activities, not retail sales and service. or light manufacturing uses. and they would have to run at the same time. >> commissioner richards: that makes a lot of sense. hopefully it would be more nonprofit use, other than startups, but i get the intent. >> commissioner hillis: so i'm supportive of this also. i also see nonprofit office users potentially taking advantage of this. we all hear the complaints of buildings that lay fallow during that long period, between entitlement and building. i agree with commissioner melgar, given the time frame on this, whether it's three years or granted further, you're not going to have big office projects or retail that require

huge amounts of t. i. so i think it will tend to go after users like nonprofit office space. that could be temporary while people look for additional office space. so i think it gives us more flexibility. i'm supportive. i think this could work. certainly, if we have issues and issues come up, again, this is on entitled projects during that period. we can make adjustments. but i think this is useful and would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner richards: one last question. so commissioner melgar mentioned my neighborhood which is pretty much built up. there is only a few sites left they're seeking demolition permits. what about sites that have buildings on them? there is one on the corner of sanchez and 15th, 10 years now, vacant sitting there. what do you do in those situations? can this apply? >> unfortunately, if it's not a site that is slated for tantamount or demolition, then

this does not cover it. >> if i say i have this building sitting vacant for ten years now, what can i do now? >> if you have a tenant interested in moving into the ground floor, you can change their use as long as the zoning permits it. if there happens to be another -- we do have other temporary use authorization permits depending on what it is that has been interest in moving into that space on a temporary basis. they may be eligible for another, but not for this one. >> commissioner richards: thanks. >> president melgar: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: -- >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve this matter with modifications. on that motion commissioner? so moved, commissioners, motions

passes. moving to item number 10. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department project manager for the potrero power station. just south of pier 70. this project was last before you in november, 2018, for its drafting i.r. hearing and prior it that it was introduced in august 2018. the public reviewed draft of the design for development, document or d for d which will establish the basic design of the project, was published in october 2018.

along with the draft. in the months since then, the planning department and city staff have been working to refine in response to community input. as updated information on various elements of the project has become available. today's informational presentation will provide you and the public with a summary of some of the major refinements under consideration before the next public draft in lay may or early june. before the project sponsor presents the detail of the updates, i would like to introduce john liao. >> good afternoon. i'm here with director of our

division, ken rich. and we're here, as john said, today to refresh your memories and that of the public of the highlights of the project as it is currently proposed. and as it is represented in the design documents and ceqa analysis released in the fall of last year. also to talk about the exploration we've given to additional topics that we continue to hear comment on. and feedback on. and then a little bit about next steps and where we're going from here. so if i could have the screen? as we always do, we start in broader context. you'll remember this image perhaps, the southern bay front strategy. it's organizing framework that we have used to assess and talk about and connect this suite of projects in the southeast part of town.

obviously considerable amount of housing and employment represented by these projects. most of which are entitled and now active and all of which have gone through this body in some fashion. so as always, good to remember this is one piece of the puzzle that is the southeast part of town. and then specific to this project, oewd is involved in a number of ways, one is helping to facilitate the engagement of all the departments and agencies that need to be so on a project like this. of course, the department staff as well is front and center on the design discussions and other important entitlement documents. and the other main thing oewd, is the negotiation on the development agreement. this is the legal vehicle that houses the public benefits

package as we've discussed before, it's multi-layered and housing and affordable housing is of course at the top of that list. a top priority for this administration. and i can assure you, it's the topic that takes most of our time and attention in negotiation on this project. so we're working to deliver below market rate program that will be commensurate with the projects you have seen. elsewhere in the southern bay front, in terms of transportation, this project will deliver an extension to the muni 55 bus line, turnaround facilities and layover for that line in addition to over $50 million in transportation fees. the project also committed to child care facilities. recreational facility. and over six acres of open space and robust workforce development package which we look forward to

talking in more detail with you about. so obviously, these things each are important topics in their own right and they work together to make a full package. and, of course, if you grow one, it really comes at the expense of another. so you'll hear a lot today about is balance and how one balances these multiple important objectives in a single project that at the end of the day needs to be feasible or else, obviously, the public gets none of these important benefits. so we'll talk about that as we go through it. and i think one of the project sponsor staff is next. thank you very much. >> hello, commissioners. associate capital, the project sponsor of the mixed use project here in dog patch. we're here with an update that our team has done.

the power station and or where is one of san francisco's most intensely used industrial sites. this was a key industrial site since the gold rush. it hosted an array of uses. it was known for the generation of electricity, but previously it refined sugar, barrels and exciting things like dynamite. this portion of san francisco's bay front has been closed to the public for general races. this is -- generations. this is about opening it to all san franciscans. over the past few years, our team has been listening to the community of what could and should come next at the power station. our team made the deliberate decision to put our office on the site so we could immerse ourselves in this community. we've held hundreds of stakeholders events to listen and learn and work with the community. our project has responded to the three primary things we heard.

which is one of the mixed use and mixed urban waterfront project that is active and vibrant at all times today. two, we've been asked to build as much as housing as possible and it will deliver more than 2000 units of housing. and we heard to reopen up the waterfront as soon as possible. this is the waterfront as it sits today. of course, this is an image of what is possible when this waterfront is reopen. since proposing this waterfront, we've continued listening and today's presentation is areas of the project that needed further dialogue with the community. the topics are open space, urban forum, and presentation. i'll turn it over to my colleague tina who will walk you through it.

>> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the project sponsor team. it's a pleasure to be before this body again, albeit in a slightly different capacity, but still with a great goal of creating wonderful places in the city. i have to admit though that sometimes enrique will ask if the director sent me to keep him and project in line. i want to thank john who have been great project managers coordinating between the agencies and across agencies. i'm also joined by other members of the team, including karen and chris, our designers. and our architects who are also here available to answer any questions. it's been a great privilege to work to be part of the team reenvisioning this part of the waterfront. in addition to opening up the waterfront to the community after being closed for so long,

our -- >> commissioner moore: could you hold the microphone up a little bit? it's fading in and out. >> okay. particularly the water front. the project's greatest asset. if the financial district transforms the density and energy, then dog patch and the power station is reenergizing this town. so we ask ourselves what does success look like? we think that success in 20-30 years would be that dog patch with the power station and pier 70, it would feel like one neighborhood, like a dog patch. and so to accomplish this, we started by serving the riches we've inherited.

with respect to streets and open spaces, we connected with each connection we could. to complement and build on the waterfront, crane cove park, north of pier 70 and water cove south of ours. we're improving part of the open space program. it's the smaller green patch. these three waterfront spaces will all be connected by the blue greenway which will extend through 1200 feet of waterfront. we looked at how to add to the rich network of more neighborhood scaled open spaces. these include wood yard park, and what will be irish hill in pier 70. to deliver on the request by providing a sports field and active fitness structure for all ages, including the waterfront. we then studied how to build

upon and continue as a place of discovery. the most obvious is third street. where the ground floor use is contained within the american industrial center, reflects the dna of dog patch. using unique food and beverage places, commingling with retail as well as the neighborhood with retail, including the barber shop and nail care amongst the most affordable rates in the city. 22nd street continues with a small convenience store, saloon and delicious food options. you walk a few blocks and there is an art gallery. what you see here in orange is how the projects to the north and the power station continues this ethos. on 20th street, there is a

corner building that will be renovated into hardware. it can bring you to building 12, the maker hall in the square building, or to building 2, that long diagonal building on the waterfront. you make your way to the commons and that will celebrate historic slipway. and it sets the stage for pier 70. if you're coming south along the waterfront, you won't be able to miss the stack, the 300-foot tower that is a beloved icon in the site. from here you might be joined by the park where it's possible to catch a structure we inherited. half of building a, which we'll discuss later. if you enter the site through 23rd street, you view the historic sugar warehouses. as enrique mentioned, our team

office is at the power station site, so we really feel like we're part of the neighborhood. like any neighborhood stakeholder you continually learn more about its culture, idiosyncrasie idiosyncrasies, and things that make it better. with the diversity of open spaces and places with open programming playing homage to the diversity that is dog patch, we took stock to see how to make things better. since we're a waterfront site and plan to redevelop the waterfront in the first phase, we continue to envision us and other urban explorers walking south and being drawn by the stack. we wanted to create a space that was commensurate with this structure. so we unified the series of spaces east of delaware street that form the waterfront park.

and we think the stack could be a piece of public art or a cafe. after spending time along the waterfront, and engaging with the stack, our urban explorer might walk west toward power station park. which is flanked by uses, or we hope to be flanked by uses that form the park. the park extends the plaza concept. creating a relationship to the icon. another way to contribute to the artistic ethos. moving west, a play structure. and a space for child care, which we envision on blocks 7 and 11. this is the result of many tests conducted. child care is a community facility we're committed to providing because we think that doing so would help us make it easier for families to stay in san francisco.

walking up louisiana, our version of the european plaza, and activated by spillout cafe, or the weekly food truck. there will be activity at the corner of georgia street, where we plan to have a recreation center that will be a fitness center and potentially a grocery store. we thought it was important to bolster the corner with community-oriented facilities. after taking stock of the open spaces and evaluating what could be approved, we evaluated what we could do about our urban forum. as a recap, we had a site comprised of 14 blocks. this plan contains 2600 units. 220-240 hotel and 100,000 square

foot of retail. the tallest buildings on the site are the residential ones, signalling that housing is most prominent and important. this is a block diagram of the image you just saw. and as enrique mentioned, we continue this listening tour. we heard and listened from the community that some had concerns about setting a new precedent for height along this section of the waterfront between mission and slave creek. so we explore what the site could look like with the 300 tower dropped to 240 feet. while this drop in height continued a conversation between the stack and this tower, we felt that another move could occur here. also in response to another piece of feedback from the community, which was to explore how to preserve station a. again, we'll get into station a

later, as well as the tradeoff, but just to stay on the topic of urban forum, this shows the 240 foot tower. we looked at retaining all floor walls with the tower on top. office rises above the existing walls and is topped off with 10 floors of residential use. we realized how challenging this would be. the rehabilitation of station a would be complex as it is as a single use structure. and we know that the architecture structure would be iconic. then we began to consider this wholistically. we still wanted an urban form that related to the stack, so we accomplished this by shifting the tower -- we could accomplish it by shifting the tower to block 7. we thought this could create an opportunity for station a and a power station front in