so, it had its origin even before the muo designation? >>> right, but it was in terms of the secondary office intentions of sso, which as ms. rodgers said, were carried over lock stock and barrel into the muo. it did not exist until supervisor daly introduced it. >> okay, thank you. now i know the history, but i still don't know, maybe it was felt that 75 was a number that, well, it's small enough that it would fit into the fabric of the area. however, it doesn't speak to height, doesn't speak to bulk. it's just a number of rooms if you had -- you could have, you know, a larger number of smaller rooms and a smaller number of larger rooms. it could be a lot of different forms. it might encourage something we don't want. so, i don't know about that. then we still have the conditional use process which i think is a strong argument that anything that would be approved, any hotel would have to be found to be necessary or desirable. and, so, each one would be considered. it's not like -- all you're saying is we're going to open the door in a la

muo is the anything goes zoning category. it build upon the notion that high-tech offices, hand commercial uses, and tourist hotels and housing and pdr and entertainment venues can all get along just fine and none will displace any of the others. i promised i'd be back here after your down zoning of residential uses on the 11th street corridor to remind you of the naivity of the planning staff recommendations when they come before you with these polley annish predictions that everybody is going to get along just fine. that didn't work on 11th street and it won't work here either. there are broader implications to this text amendment that have been presented to you to date. and i would hope you would give it a little bit more thought. thank you. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. steve vettle. i represent an individual named dave o'keefe who has a hotel project that was approved at 144 king street in 2005. put this on the overhead. it's not great graphic, but it can show you the location -- >> can you put that down? thanks. >>