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. Ill be pretty short here. This project hasnt 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 dont 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 dont see how it fits and will not be supportive. Commissioner moore. Theres 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 Fishermans Wharf to succeed, to go from north beach to Fishermans 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 its 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. Its amazing. Its a lovely neighborhood and everything about it works. And its 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 doesnt 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 doesnt mean this project will just be housing. Somebody else has to propose something. Commissioner moore. I have a procedure motion are we making. We dont 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 wont 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 dont know were 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 dont know how we got here, i think the first part of the hotel didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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 dont think we should ban hotels in the neighborhood or housing in the city. We dont get a lot of hotels in front of us. Im against the motion. Commissioner fong. I thought more about this, in bed. Im sympathetic and understand the neighbors concerns but from a pure land use issue. We had this imaginary line of bay street being residence, Tourist Hotels and tourist activities and thats been a plus and minus for Fishermans Wharf, that been the line, you are deemed in tourist land which is sort of taboo. And thats a dark spot for Fishermans 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 Fishermans Wharf fuse as a neighborhood rather than a dividing line for lanes of the road. I am in support, and in the future if theres a residential project on the other side of the street, ill 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 im 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 its a hotel and residences and north of bay street, north of Fishermans Wharf. And i think that works. I just throw that out there to say theres not a black and white dividing line. I just agree the project is not quite right and we worked with it and i still dont 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 43 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. Its 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 doesnt 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 its more acceptable and closer to available market and stevenson street. The project sponsor prepared alternatives for the commissions 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. Theres a presentation prepared and the sponsor is available for questions. Thank you. Project sponsor. Welcome. Good morning. Im 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 . Its a were 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. Its 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. Its intended the hotel would be branded. We have not selected a chain yet. Well 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 were 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. Heres 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. Heres the stevenson street entrance. This is the roof deck as currently proposed. Theres 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 doesnt offer anything but a dark passage way. Initially we didnt 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. Its very much the neighborhood pattern. If thats 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 its 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 is a roomsonly hotel plus i would say as a contrasting to the project we just heard, there is public space and retail and other things that sort of integrated into the highly commercial district located in. I would say, i do think i agree, popus has been challenging for us. We have had comment from the public in the past that verifies something that anybody who has been to some of the Larger Hotels can see that they can be hard to find, hard to access. I think a group of youth tried to go to all and some they didnt have access to, some they couldnt find. There are renderings of roof top space in the package regardless. Is that just for hotel guests . Speaking through the chair, commissioner johnson, well build the roof top whether its the popus or not. If the direction is to put it on stevenson, which is where we would prefer rather than the staff recommendation, well still have the same roof deck that you see in the renderings. Thank you. So it sounds like then if we put it on the roof we would just have less open space. I think im supportive of the ground floor. I dont see the issue with the reception area and popus, i dont understand why you need three hotel rooms on the ground floor between publicly accessible open space and retail. I would just say i think the staff recommendation was to do what . To relocate or remove them so the popus could be integrated more with the retail and accessed through both streets. Okay. So i make that motion we approve the project with the condition that the three hotel rooms on the ground floor be removed and the popus between reception and retail. Second. Commissioner moore. I want to ask if it was on the roof, wouldnt it have to be a designated order to protect access to hotel rooms. Question two, the protected area of the hotel is mostly between the reception area and the elevator, if the popus is right across from the elevator, im concerned theres not enough protection that unauthorized people do not go up in the Hotel Elevators to rooms they havent rented. 3, the rest rooms youre proposing at this moment from three hotel rooms dont have the typical privacy pockets you see in commercial establishments by which you step into an anti room before turning into the washroom itself. This particular case, the door to the toilet is center line with the access to hotel room. I think thats an unfortunate solution and i dont think its appropriate for a public facility like a hotel or lobby which has potential to be open users using the hotel rest room as well. There are a number of questions. I also observe that the hotel room dimension and i think were speaking here to the same architect of mr. Stanton as the columbus street hotel, they were 11 foot 3 in cross dimension. The hotel rooms here in this particular project are proposed at 10 foot 9, 10 foot 10. It is smaller than what we see on columbus. I question that those are properly dimensioned tourist rooms and potentially concerned they could be hotel rooms for longer stay tech workers. Im concerned theyre like a surrogate residential type facility. I dont have any problems with the hotel in the location. I have some problems with the design and layout including the absolutely minimally sized seven or eight story light well that brings hardly any light to the bottom floors on floor one when you look at sheet a102 at room number 12. Looking against the wall is about three feet and that seems to be not enough for having well enough appointed hotel room. I have some issues with the design, not with the location. Would you like to comment mr. Stanton . Speaking through the chair, that was a bit of a compound statement, im going to divide it a bit. Commissioner moore, whats normally done when the popus is located on a roof, is that the user of the popus is directed at the front desk and he or she gets the key to access the elevator to go up. The control point when its on the roof like at 942 Mission Street, the 17 story hampton inn mr. Singh has is at the elevator. You commented on the bedroom sizes can you talk a little louder . Sorry. You asked about guest room sizes, the general trend is more toward smaller guest rooms. People spend less time in their rooms. This is not a full service hotel. Its one of the few types of hotels we havent built many of in San Francisco opposed to the w which is full service hotel. With the advent of the flat screen television, guest rooms have shrunk a foot in width. They have gone off like the elephant graveyard, somewhere to die. This is very normal and meets most operators standards, particularly in a city like San Francisco where they recognize the high cost of land and high rates you can get will have the brands accept a smaller guest room. These will be fine for a number of chains just as of the slightly undersized ones worked out for hilton and hampton in. The bathrooms across from the guest rooms on the first floor. Point well taken, these are schematic plans and well work it out so one is not exposed to the traffic there. The light well comment, the rooms at the end where the light is narrowest, its what they call in the Hotel Business as last rent, theyll be rented last. The sponsor has said well go however you want to handle the popus. I would like to make the observation though, simply enlarging this in the middle of the building, which is what removing the three guests room does, puts Additional Space where theres eight floors of hotel above it, no visual access to it from the s