there's been a strong desire to see improvements in the area. sponsor has indicated that they will be responsible for maintenance and liability of the proposed improvements. proposed improvements would consist of public works standard materials and maintenance covenant outlined as part of the encroachment permit and specific work will be established. the city is exploring a community facilities district to provide maintenance operations. the exact terms are being developed. if a cfd is established, funding could be generated by an annual tax agreed upon by all properties. the sponsor has committed to participating in a cfd to provide additional funding for maintenance and improvements in oak plaza the planning department, department of public works, department 7 real -- of real estate and city attorney's office has reviewed it and we've provided rounds of feedback. placement of trees on the north sidewalk, improving loading and passenger dropoff has been improved. the plaza has been reviewed at discussed at numerous public meetings. in may of this year, cac passed a resolution supporting the impact fee waiver and any eligible administrative and project management costs as to be determined. the proposed plaza has been reviewed by the arts commission, who approve the concept design in november, 2015, and schematic design. the sponsor is presented the plaza to numerous organizations and agencies. it's received 37 letters in support of the plaza. we receive 17 additional letters and i have copies of those with me today. there's been no comments in opposition. staff finds that the plaza is in line with the city's objectives and eligibility criteria specified in the commission's policy on in-kind agreements. it's been envisioned high density, public ground and improvement to support transit and walking and biking. it sites underutilized streets and right-of-way to create new public parks and plazas. oak plaza is identified in the hub plan. per the criteria from the planning commission's 2010 policy, the plaza would qualify as a complete streets project, which is an eligible category for improvements. it's not yet been exhausted. the project presents opportunities for community improvements and would be timed to coincide with one oak. and would utilize designers and construction, crews already working on site. given that oak plaza is consistent with the city's priorities, undergone outreach and generated positive responses, we recommend the approval of the fee waiver. i would like to read into the record a clerical error. the law girl is gibson dunn. i will turn the presentation over to the sponsor, who will present in more detail and i will be available for more questions following the presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor, welcome. you have 5 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jared press, program manager at build public. we're an independent 501c3 nonprofit. our mission is to create great public spaces for all through creative public-private partnerships, just such as this, and we're excited about a number of projects coming down the pipeline. we hope to be back here soon. before we talk about the design, we believe that great public open spaces require an informed -- community-informed design process. and this has been nothing if not that. outreach has been incredibly extensive and were thrilled by the opportunity to create a front porch for the hayes valley and civic center cultural arts district. let me pass it off to discuss design. >> commissioners, michael yarny, build and build public. great to be here today. i will speak fast so we get through this. our design is a public living room, as jared mentioned. we hope it's a front porch for the city center, hayes valley arts district. our goal is to take one is probably the least attractive corner in the city and make it an inviting place that you want to spend time in. there are some constraints. i want to talk about them. our design tried to enclose. it's 20 feet wide. that was the negotiation with the fire department. we have a great building to our north that the entire ground floor is leased for 20 years to an organization that doesn't want to have active retail. one of our designs was activating that northern edge. we had a lot of utilities and sub sidewalk vaults. so where we place trees and planters has been worked over for about two years. and, finally, we had to respect -- we proposed originally the lovely muni elevator be moved, but that will not happen immediately, so we redesigned housing around that elevator and made it into something attractive. our neighbor just to the west, where that red triangle is, we worked closely with them to preserve their dropoff zone. so there were some constraints on the site, but i feel like our design worked we develop. i want to talk a tiny bit about activation and eyes on the plaza. one of the things is the four micro kiosks. it cannot be activated itself any time soon. so we turned it into an opportunity. we were inspired by -- these on the level are micro kiosks on trinity place. this is at bush and montgomery. it's a lovely alley. pike's place market. why is that there? this is a little mini public market. we want to attract retail that is local and special. bose flowers, which is a legacy business, she will be moving her floral business into one of these micro kiosks. there's a coffee vendor and talk about having a ticket vendor. here's an image of what they look like. they're a modern, removable addition. and what we went up with the combination of the kiosks, but the lobbies, you have a lot of eyes on the plaza. you have a highly activated, safe place with lots of users. as jared alluded to, we've worked with organizations and the plaza is designed to have small events. they want their students to perform out here and have venues for what could be more well organized, including a full closure, where you could temporary close the street and have a large-scale performance. these are some renderings of what that future space will look like. the bart and muni metro are here, so we wanted a place that you can arrive at and feel comfortable with. we have the slow street, northern portion of the plaza. you can see the muni elevator where the market street brick is and we have two kinetic wind sculptures that will be implemented hopefully when we begin construction on the power. this is a view looking down to the intersection. i think the point is here is the scale. it's a public living room. the micro kiosks on your left and here on your right you can see the sculpture. and wrapping up, this is the end, our beautiful night view. we hope to make this a very well lit, safe place. and that retail space will support eyes on the plaza. we're available for questions thank you for your patients. >> ted olson for public comment. welcome, ted. if others would like to speak, line up on the side of the room. >> president hillis, directors, as you remember, i'm a third-generation san franciscan, on numerous planning policy committees. as i've mentioned to you before, this is an important civic intersection. and while neighborhood input from the cac, from neighbors themselves, the hub, are important, the importance of the location as well as that of the hub area itself, belongs to all san francisco citizens, rather like all improvements, along the waterfront today. the director can attest that i say this at every waterfront meeting, the five mega developments belong to the city. it's appropriate to note that while many moved to the neighborhood have benefited from the substantial improvements to the area while visitors and cultural subscribers enjoy them primarily while visiting. i would like to ask you commissioners to meet with your colleagues at the mta to get them to develop that subway entrance at the same time following supervisor dig-once policy. i compliment you for the superb outreach in which they've gone above and beyond almost every developer i've met in the decade working on these committees and i hope you will help them, as the initial developer at this gateway corner to inspire others. i really believe that they can be an example to all future developers because of their outstanding record. they have met, i'll note, all hub goals. and, therefore, i think they really qualify as build represents an incredible example for others to follow. >> thank you, mr. olson. any other public speakers on this item? seeing none. we'll good to commissioner comments. commissioner -- any commission comments? commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: i don't really have any comments. we've been watching this project for a while and this waiver fee seems natural. it seems like it's natural that we have a good start for this building. this one hopefully is the capper on it. so i'm supportive. >> motion to approve? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we are obviously not at all familiar how numbers are compiled. i'm reading the report and i'm trying to understand the outreach in public comment and a number in that report and the total by which you are explaining how the numbers ultimately evolve into a larger number and perhaps you could explain to the public including myself how that works. >> sure. are you referring to the slide here with a tally of our outreach? >> commissioner moore: yes. >> we've had a number of engagement meetings with the city, with planning, with public works, and the arts commission, and m.t.a. additionally, we've had a total of 87 community engagement meetings, meeting with various representatives of the public. of those meetings, 39 of those, as a subset, were with cultural stake holders, sf jazz, conservatory of music. of the 87 community engagement meetings, we had a total of 342 people attend those meetings. does that clear up your question? >> commissioner moore: no. i'm trying to figure out how the numbers layer themselves up from $1,952,000 to $2,180,000. give us an idea in terms of how many years and escalation -- >> oh, not the participation numbers. the dollar amounts. i'm sorry. we didn't understand. i'm happy -- i think that staff can actually explain that. we also could, but i think it's more appropriate that staff does. >> so as part of the in-kind agreement, the requirement is to do two cost estimates. those are both in the packet. it includes hard costs and soft costs, as well as project management costs and takes into account 5% escalation over three years. >> commissioner moore: i am generally in strong support that this is being done seamlessly, with the same kind of attention of actual and public disruption costs building these things together. in many cases, we have finished projects and public improvement that lag years and years behind. it's a look at how long it took to find common ground and implementation. the only question i'm asking is, will you see the project through? there's been comments by yourself or others, and there's gossip in this city, that you may sell the project. and that's where we're a little bit uncomfortable because we know what sometimes handing over projects to others means and doesn't mean. >> yeah, i think the most important thing is -- it's not our intent to sell the project, but i cannot say categorically that it's not a possibility because we have investors. and as a local developer, we have to listen to our investors. that said, it's our intent to develop the project ourselves. also, and i think this is really important and not just our intent, but as i understand it, it's a binding obligation. even if it wasn't us, the fee waiver comes with the obligation to build out the improvements. and in the event that if we were unlikely and lost control of the project, which, again, is not what we expect, the future developer with have to build it out, the improvements, or they would have to forego the waiver and pay the remainder of the fees. director, you may be able to confirm that. but i think that's the most important part, kathrin, excuse me, commissioner moore, that there's no way to avoid the obligation. >> commissioner moore: there is obligation where money is concerned and there's an obligation about quality and that's very strong in your company, including the nonprofit, which is the brainchild of your organization. so being on the receiving end of the public, i'm asking, will the public component stay with the nonprofit or would it be automatically then managed and be sold to somebody else as a monetary obligation. >> it's a manager and comes from private development. so the nonprofit serves as development manager and for-profit the funding source. so the good news, we're building three of the projects that you recently improvement. 650 indiana. hopefully all the commissioners have had a chance to see it. we're very proud of the quality and the finish. we're in the process of building 1532 harrison. we will be building 830 eddie as well. it's our intent to build this project. i also know that the level of design review the staff have undergone with this project in the unlikely event that we lose control of the project, it would be up to the planning staff to ensure the implementation the plaza that reflects the projects. >> commissioner moore: it goes back to the discussion that we had earlier. we've poured our heart into this. we have supported it. and brought the citizenry along to support high quality at a place of transformation and i'm seriously concerned, and it has nothing to do with my supporting you, but i'm concerned that we continue to be unable to attach obligation to far-reaching obligations that are being approved here today, including a quality building and place making. mostly, as we all know, when projects get sold, and i will have to use the word flipping, because that's kind of -- as projects get sold, it's very difficult to keep them committed to the high quality, including the exact implementation and time we've all spent on it. what do you suggest? >> commissioner, with this particular aspect of the project, which is in the public environment, we've a very high level of control over the quality. because it's in the public right-of-way. and our colleagues at the department of public works have been looking over our shoulder every minute of this process. the process of selling entitled projects is going on a lot right now. the market is driving that, as are construction costs. and we can't -- the best we can do, i think, and i don't -- we can't prevent anyone from selling their project. the challenge is that the construction costs are keeping the projects from being built and that's an unfortunate reality of where we are in the market right new. having said all of that, this particular project, the quality of the plaza, i think, is something we have a high level of control over, no matter who the developer is, because much of it is in the right-of-way. and mr. yarny is right, with this agreement, you approve this today and it allows me to sign the agreement. that gives us a high level of control and it's transferrable to any future owner as well. >> commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: thank you, commissioner moore, those are good questions and ones that i had as well and had a feeling, but wanted to be sure that they're binding and stay with the project and the land, whoever is the ultimate owner. i will make a motion to approve. >> second. >> nothing further commissioners, there's a commission seconded to approve the matter. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> submissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commissioner megar. >> aye. it is passes. this is on number 18. 1196 columbus avenue. conditional use authorization. on september 28, 2017, after hearing and closing public comment, the commission adopted to disapprove and continue the matter. november 2, after hearing and closing public comment, commission continued the matter to november 16. commissioner melgar, you were absent on the second hearing. you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the materials. >> commissioner melger: thank you. >> the last time we continued this was to have a seven-member commission. since commissioner hillis is not in this chair, i will ask to take a 5-minute recess, so if we vote we have seven members >> very good. >> good evening. welcome back to the san francisco public planning commission for thursday, november 16, 2017. we left off on item 18. 2014-002849cua, 1196 columbus avenue. >> i'm filling in. the item before you is a rick west for conditional use authorizization to establish a hotel use doing business as ac hotel by marriott, 1196 columbus avenue. the project proposes the demolition of a single-story commercial building and construction a four-story hotel with 75 rooms. there will be bull-outs for pedestrian safety. it's been heard by the commission twice. september 28, it was continued to november 2 with motion of intent to disapprove. vote was 3-3. item was continued to today's hearing for a vote with the full commission. the project sponsor is here. our recommendation -- department recommendation is for approval with conditions. and the project sponsor is here to make a presentation as well. >> thank you. so we've heard this a couple of times. i don't think the facts have changed much, but we'll take a 2-minute presentation from the project sponsor and then public comment for 1 minute. >> 2 minutes? >> 2 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time today. throughout the process, our project has been simple, be a good neighbor while executing our plan. we've addressed issues, particularly the change to a more appropriate hotel brand. today as i stand before you, i'm without any certainty for the grounds of denial of the project. previous comments included land use and design. we fall in the c2 zone. three months ago, a hotel was approved that was an apartment that burned down. our project site has never been residential. and that hotel cup was approved, despite no labor union support and significant community opposition. we have garnered support. we're happy to report that as of yesterday, we reached a formal agreement to create a long-lasting partnership with the organization. it's also been said that bay street is a dividing line that's not true. other commercial uses exist to the south of bay street. i believe that we've done everything we can except to change the use to housing, a use this has never been. we're hotel developers that understand the need for housing, but also understand the need to build complete scities that hav hotels and different uses. it will result in 64 union construction jobs and 41 hotel labor jobs. >> thank you. we may have questions for you. >> any public comment? paul webber, cynthia gomez, marla knight. >> you can approach in any order. >> welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is paul webber and i'm from telegraph hill dwellers to oppose the construction of a transient-occupancy facility on this site. at a time when the city is recognizing the imperative of housi housing and this proposal effectively is permanent -- thank you. >> you have 30 seconds. >> oh, sorry. as i was saying, the market is crying for long-term rentals. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. webber. next speaker, please. if you can line up, it makes it easier, but go ahead and speak. >> i had put my card in and didn't hear you call my name. i'm david harlin. i work at powell and california and live at 1050 washington street. that's about seven blocks from this project. i'm in support of the hotel at 1196 columbus because of the guarantee of the good jobs it will create. having a union really helps workers because it keeps them in san francisco and contributing to the neighborhoods. so the hotel workers are asking you to approve the project based on the quality of the jobs it will create. thank you. >> great. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. marla knight, north beach tenants committee. we oppose a hotel wedged into north beach place. residents would be knowing tifrtifr -- negatively affected. north beach is a small, but vital community of residences, which is why we're here. they're asking to be permitted into our neighborhood. the red line of bay street has not been breached and should not be. i urge you not to allow this hotel against the wishes of residents directly affected in our community as a whole. the quality of life of our most vulnerable residents surely takes precedence over jay street marriott. better this precious land be used for affordable housing, perhaps for hotel workers that cannot afford to live in the city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. i live at north beach place apartments. jay street partners is asking our residential community to absorb the burden and hardships of the hotel. rooftop plan is a nuisance. the noise of elevator mechanics, heating, air-conditioning, and 12 exhaust fans venting 76 bathrooms outside of our apartment buildings, some as close as 10 feet. not only do they fail to provide a single parking space, it eliminates 50 feet of parking on bay street. the hotel would receive 10 to 15 deliveries a week. where would this happen? lane traffic would increase elevated pollution concentrations at the site and it's a major health hazard for seniors and children. it's our health and safety that is at risk with this hotel and we don't have tha by national or international companies who are not necessarily familiar with our landscape here in san francisco and how much we value groups like the hotel workers in the building trades, just wanted to point that out. so you can realize that is going above and beyond what is normally happens here in the city. i hope that's taken into consideration. i did want to ask the project sponsor up here to answer a couple of questions. i don't think they have been asked to speak a couple of times. project sponsor, if i can ask a couple of questions. was there a lot of competition or activity around this site when you purchased it originally? was there other developers looking at the corner? >> well, we bought the site in 2014, at the time it was heavily brokered by a reputable national level firm. you know, we were competitive in the process and we didn't outbid by any means. i don't know to the extent of the other groups but we had had no reason specifically to be chosen other than the fact that the site doesn't underwrite as well for residential. my guess is it may or may not have traded. that's probably why the developer sold it. they ended up vacating it. i'm not sure of the motivation but i could speculate. >> one more. if you ask me, it seems like the part of town to have hotels, i don't agree with the fine hard absolute line of -- seeing there are hotels south of the area, isn't this a neighborhood with a high hotel occupancy? i think this place would be a location for a hotel to succeed and how do you see demand for hotel rooms versus what someone may have said, the projected residential housing units to be taken up. >> we did the analysis, listening to the commission. to answer the first part of the question, fisherman's wharf is among the highest occupancies and san francisco is among the top three in the country. sort of by that analysis, you could say it's one of the strongest places in the area for hotels. our lenders tend to agree with that as well. regarding the residential component, we did run the numbers and i'm not a residential developer, so i don't have that inherent skill set, but looking at it from a high level perspective, where the construction costs are, this project doesn't underwrite as residential use. it's like asking a plumber to hang dry wall. i don't know what to do. i don't have investors, it's my project. i saved money, sold other assets to buy this project years ago to bring something new to fisherman's wharf. there's a lot of painting the pig, products that have come up that are charging great rents but the experiences are not that great. i see a lot of opportunity to provide otherwise improvement to that corner, you guys all know the corner, we have a month to month rent with the bike shop that says basically free bikes on the outside of the building. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. >> you can have a seat. thank you though. >> i'll be pretty short here. this project hasn't changed other than the agreement with the childcare facility from last time. i can still consider this a land use issue. the changes to the project makes it more of a residential project with transient occupancy and with the online projects, i try to side on the side of the project sponsor and sort of see the bright side of what is being proposed for us. on this particular one, i think there are issues with the lot and i don't think of it just as the dividing line, spoken about by various people in public comment but generally speaking with that corner lot with the elements of things making it a hotel being taken away, i don't see how it fits and will not be supportive. >> commissioner moore. >> there's history that obligates me personally to stand with the residents and the transformation of north beach place. this project, many years ago for those who have been around long enough know it is difficult, extremely complicated barrier for fisherman's wharf to succeed, to go from north beach to fisherman's wharf, we had an area that was dicey to say it mildly the the people who took on an amazing transformation is one of a kind and i think it's pride of that success, including giving large numbers of people the ability to be live in decent housing and par take in how good housing lifts you up from nowhere to somewhere. that makes me want to stand with the remaining side, literally the pivotal side of the project to be a housing site. i have walked the site four times since we left, had our meeting and i have gone around it. i have observed it in the morning, in the afternoon, in the middle of the day at lunch. i walk down to the wharf and each time i go by, you can only be proud of this particular part of town. it's amazing. it's a lovely neighborhood and everything about it works. and it's for that very reason that i have to stand by not supporting the hotel but looking for a housing development on this portion. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i would just make a quick note. i feel like i have to say it. just because of whatever we vote on with this project, it doesn't mean it will be housing. this is still a site where we would need a sponsor to come forward with a different project. i feel i have heard that a number of times in public comment. it doesn't mean this project will just be housing. somebody else has to propose something. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a procedure motion are we making. we don't have anything to deny -- >> there is a draft motion for disapproval as there was the previous week. >> it was deadlocked the last time. we have a full compliment of commissioners, we won't deadlock today. both motions are in front of you. >> there are others who want to weigh in. >> i have not changed my mind much. so i don't know -- we're waiting for commissioner melgar, i make a motion to disapprove. >> second. >> okay. great. i stick with my opposition to that. i think this is a perfect site for a hotel. i think when -- i don't know how we got here, i think the first part of the hotel didn't work and there was a lot of legitimate concern about the type of hotel, the roof deck, how it would impact the neighbors and i think a lot of that has been corrected, for complete cities and neighborhoods we need hotels and schools. this is currently a tourist oriented bike rental which is not a great use for the site, a key site. i don't think the wall greens is a greatest use of site. i would like to see them all developed into housing and hotels, preferably affordable housing. but we don't get to pick and choose. i think a hotel is appropriate on this site, especially evolved into the newer iteration of the hotel, i think works. there are hotels in residential and neighborhood, i don't think we should ban hotels in the neighborhood or housing in the city. we don't get a lot of hotels in front of us. i'm against the motion. commissioner fong. >> i thought more about this, in bed. i'm sympathetic and understand the neighbor's concerns but from a pure land use issue. we had this imaginary line of bay street being residence, tourist hotels and tourist activities and that's been a plus and minus for fisherman's wharf, that been the line, you are deemed in tourist land which is sort of taboo. and that's a dark spot for fisherman's wharf, the wharf has wanted to cross over and get more locals. the idea of a hotel on the south side of bay street is equally as good as putting residents on the north side to make fisherman's wharf fuse as a neighborhood rather than a dividing line for lanes of the road. i am in support, and in the future if there's a residential project on the other side of the street, i'll be in support as well. >> commissioner johnson. >> i would say -- i completely agree with commissioner fong. it is about land use and the design of the project presented for that lot. but i agree i'm not sure i agree with that imaginary dividing line. a great example of north of bay street residences/hotel is the fairmont residences, fancy people land but it's a hotel and residences and north of bay street, north of fisherman's wharf. and i think that works. i just throw that out there to say there's not a black and white dividing line. i just agree the project is not quite right and we worked with it and i still don't see it. >> okay. >> we have a motion and a second. >> indeed you do. the motion to disapprove the project on the motion commissioner fong. >> no. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> the motion passes 4-3 with fong, kroppel and hillis voting no. that puts us at the next issue. this is a downtown property authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. the item before you is a downtown project authorization -- and conditional use authorization for a mixed use development on market street. it's located on the south side of market between 6th and 7th in the downtown commercial zoning district and the market street theater and loft historic district. the lots are currently developed with a two story vacant building. the project would demolish the existing building and construct a tourist hotel with retail on the bottom. the project requests an exception foreground level wind currents and conditional use for establishing the 160 room hotel. the department believes that the arrangement of the ground floor does not comply with section 138. the current proposal places the publicly open space behind the reception area that doesn't easily convey the nature of the space. alternatives such as removing or relocating the rooms were rejected by the sponsor. the ground floor should be redesigned so it's more acceptable and closer to available market and stevenson street. the project sponsor prepared alternatives for the commission's consideration. should they choose one of the alternatives, to date the department has not received correspondence in support or opposition of the project. subsequent to the redesign of the ground floor, department staff proposing a hotel use within a district that supports larger hotel and tourist uses and support the tourism sector, terminate revenue through the occupancy tax. provide publicly accessible space and ground floor uses to help market and stevenson street at this location. it would create new jobs and incorporate site design existing with the surrounding context. it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. there's a presentation prepared and the sponsor is available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. welcome. >> good morning. i'm michael stanton, the architect for 1055 market street. as claudene said this is a mid level market site -- could you give me the second image please? it's a -- we're dealing with a broken tooth on market street. we have a 1981 non descriptive building between two attractive buildings. the building has no historic value. the proposal you have in front of you, for 160 rooms only hotel. no meeting facilities on the hotel, no food or beverage prepared on the facility, but there is a large retail space available. it's going to be developed, built and operated by jay singh, the successful developer of the mission street hotel that is now the hampton inn, this is a developer who is invested in the san francisco community and proven success in terms of getting hotels built in the 21st century. it's intended the hotel would be branded. we have not selected a chain yet. we'll be aiming for a business traveller type hotel. currently in loft is the suggested brand but we have made no commitment to a brand r.as mentioned, the first floor, we have made an effort to try to energize stevenson and market street. market street will have a retail space and pedestrian entrance to the hotel. stevenson is where the lob why is located with guests coming from cab, uber, lyft through stevenson street. the second level shows the retail space and lobby will be two storeys in height. this is the typical level of the plan. and finally the final plan is the the roof level, about 20% of the roof with mechanical penthouse. the most is seen as passive landscape space about 450 square feet. our initial proposal was for a bay on market street oriented the access of mcallister reflecting the city grids. this is the exact copy of what we're presenting here. the planning staff and i have been working on many things, including the treatment of the building, the recessing of the windows and the materials to come up with what we think is a good proposal. market street will be stone on the first two levels, brick above that with metal and cement sp spindles. we will be finishing stevenson on concealed fasteners. here's a view of the market street facade proposed with the stone, brick plate and multi level connection out of the guest room levels. this is intended elevation for the stevenson street facade. a view of the market street portion. a blow up of market street at night showing the retail space. a view of the stevenson facade. here's the stevenson street entrance. this is the roof deck as currently proposed. there's a good deal of discussion about the popus. we started out with the proposal to put it on the roof. that was rejected by staff and nopdr number two, the tier. and instead they suggested street level. street level makes a lot of sense. more people can see it and get to it and use it. in this particular site however, we have very severe constraints for street level. 60 feet wide and it loses elevation to stevenson. when we think of popus, we can put it on market, stevenson, through block or behind the lobby. it breaks the continuity of the market street store front and alike. likewise, the long narrow alley doesn't offer anything but a dark passage way. initially we didn't like stevenson street, therefore we proposed to put it where you have in your package but staff is right, the way it is in your package is less than ideal. we propose to the commission that you improve this conditional use with a provision that the popus be returned to the roof, the 2400 square feet on the roof is sunny, it has nice views, nice amenities. it's very much the neighborhood pattern. if that's not the preference, we believe we can work out popus on stevenson as a forecourt to the lobby. with that, we would like to hear the thoughts the commission may have on the popus location and other thoughts on the hotel design and we hope for your approval. we think it's a fine infill project to fix a broken tooth on market street. >> opening up to public comment. cynthia gomez. >> good afternoon commissioners, you have heard me speak before. this project sponsor came to us very early on in the process and signing an agreement that guarantees the workers will be able to join a union and we want you to think about the amount of hotel proposals coming to mid market and what it means to have a project sponsor who has taken the care to come to us and sign this sort of agreement. so for that reason, we support this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional speakers on the item? seeing none, that portion is closed. commissioner johnson. >> so generally supportive of this project. this

Related Keywords

Indiana , United States , North Beach , California , Telegraph Hill , San Francisco , Ted Olson , Michael Stanton , Cynthia Gomez , Jay Singh , Paul Webber , David Harlin , Marla Knight , Gibson Dunn ,