vettle is describing, large sites will go for very large hotels. those are all of the formula hotels which occupy sites which are really the ones we are looking for with a much higher degree of importance, particularly the housing sites. and i do not want to see then those sites start to compete with each other for higher and better use because we know tourist hotels most likely generate higher residual values than affordable housing will. i'm just hanging that out to you more as a question than a definite answer, but there will be conflict when it comes to adding this in as broad stroke as what is in front of us today requires. so, i suggest that we ask for a more robust discussion, probably within the context of what's ahead of us here in terms of central corridor. and then give mr. vettle and staff to come up with a story of its own regarding the site across the ballpark. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, this is only an initiation, but i did have a question for staff before i began my comments. muo allows housing or does not? >> it does allow

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. >>> the hotel site is right across on the ballpark, the site of a one-story building. what was approved in 2005 was a 140-room hotel. this commission then extended those permits in 2011. the problem that we're facing and the reason that we are working with the staff and the rezoning or this text amendment is that under the old m2 zoning under which this project was approved, there was no limit to the size of hotels, but there was a severe limit to the floor area ratio. it was only 5 to 1. and, so, the direction to my client was go find qdrs from historic buildings to add to the far on the site. she was never able to do so. the prior developer passed away and my client acquired this site. none of them were ever able to find pdrs to add to the far on the s

vettle's hotel for which there is support here, is an all together separate issue. mixing the two sets a dangerous precedence and i think it undercuts what this department can do and should be doing. >> at the risk of going way off topic and talking about the hotel industry, which we already have, i'd be supportive of the sf travel coming in at some point and giving us an update of what their anticipated growth are, its problems, issues, area of preference within the city. so, as a separate note, we'll talk about that. commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i don't think that's off base. i think it's a great idea.

vettle. >>> thank you, steve vettle. i don't have anything more to add. i just wanted to go over the additional conditions the steering committee, the america's cup authority and us are asking that you impose on this permit. they're in exhibit 3 of our brief. the four conditions, number one, parking and traffic, live nation will make america's cup will make best efforts to work with city agencies which as you've heard has been happening. to produce a neighborhood traffic and parking plan. review and input by the week of april 15th. that has already occurred. second, curfews, live nation and america's cup agree to no more than 8 shows monday through thursday with music until 10:30 p.m. and the balance would end at 10:00 p.m. number 3, i think this was important to many of you. that live nation will remove all site improvements and repair any damage to the site by october 31st, 2013. the port plans include a public park available for public review. live nation further agrees not to make the existing 9200 capacity venue permanent. nor will live nation apply

vettle, of your conditions? because you were walking up here earlier. do you have -- it will just be easier for me to get to the writing [speaker not understood]. thanks. okay. so, commissioners, do you have them? okay. so, i think the number 3 here, i think -- >> excuse me, commissioners. we're fine with eliminating that parentheses as otherwise set by sffd. >> i don't think it's fire, i don't think it's fire department, it's police, isn't it?

vettle now. >>> good evening, commissioner. steve vettle on behalf of [speaker not understood] and live nation. couple of points to make. first of all, live entertainment at pier 27-29 has been planned since the inception of the america's cup project. both the board of supervisors and the port commission approved construction and operation of the pavilion in 2012 when they approved the america's cup project. the main argument seems to be the e-i-r conservatively found noise associated with amplified music and traffic impacts as a whole could be significant even after implementation of mitigation measures. but the city has implicitly made findings set forth in the police code that require rejection of the place of entertainment permit. appellants could be tend the commission had no choice but to deny the permit. but appellants are doing is confusing two different standards. ~ contend the standard of citi qua significance is different than the standard under the police code. ~ c-e-q-a there is nothing in the police code that indi

vettle, of your conditions? because you were walking up here earlier. do you have -- it will just be easier for me to get to the writing [speaker not understood]. thanks. okay. so, commissioners, do you have them? okay. i ink the number 3 here, i think -- >> excuse me, commissioners. we're fine with eliminating that parentheses as otherwise set by sffd. >> i don't think it's fire, i don't think it's fire department, it's police, isn't it? ~ >>> the entertainment commission has stipulated to fire capacity because typically that's what we would look to in terms of capacity. so, it is typically fire department. >> not police. >>> not the police department issue. >> i'm just trying to understand which agency, which department is didtion to be going to be in charge when an issue arises. it's not really clear asset out in these conditions. >>> so, there's been a vetting permit that has been issued and the permit has multiple capacities. so, if the show is sold as general admission, 92 87 is the maximum capacity for the pavilion space itself for general admiss

vettle, at the entertainment commission hearing, were there objections at that time to the proper jurisdiction -- >> i don't believe so. no, there were not. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment now on the question of the board's acceptance of the delegation of authority. can i see a show of hands how many people wish to speak on that issue? no public comment, then. >> [speaker not understood]. >> on the question of the board's jurisdiction to entertain the merits. [speaker not understood]. there will be an opportunity to if this board decides to accept jurisdiction to speak to the merits. >> my name is sam berg man. i'm not an attorney. there's been a great deal of technical discussion during the last few minutes. and i don't know whether i will have a chance to make a public comment if the board decides not to take action. so, i'm asking, is this the appropriate time to make a public comment or will i be given time after the app is heard? >> why don't you go ahead and make your comment. >> thank you. i appreciate this opportunity. my name is sam berman. i'm a resident of 101 lombard. t

vettle's hotel for which there is support here, is an all together separate issue. mixing the two sets a dangerous precedence and i think it undercuts what this department can do and should be doing. >> at the risk of going way off topic and talking about the hotel industry, which we already have, i'd be supportive of the sf travel coming in at some point and giving us an update of what their anticipated growth are, its problems, issues, area of preference within the city. so, as a separate note, we'll talk about that. commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i don't think that's off base. i think it's a great idea. it should be the prelude to anything staff does with respect to presenting things back to us in terms of changes. the other thing that i think, if we're looking at it in the bigger picture, we shouldn't be limiting it to the zoning district we're being faced with here. why isn't -- not why isn't it. i know the reason why it is right now. but there should be, if we're talking about a larger kind of perspective, in the consideration given to the other zoning district