handle the notification simultaneously so the neighborhood doesn't receive two notices. this way by including the restaurant uses in this notification, then it's serving as the notification as the individual tenants. >> would that neighborhood notification go out when you knew what type of -- >> correct. >> it seems odd that we're doing this right now not knowing what type of restaurant it is. usually it goes out when there's a tenant, right? >> once you put a restaurant there, it can be any restaurant. but the initial approval would have to be notice -- >> huh? >> i would imagine -- >> that neighbor notification would normally go out when that building is built but when there's a tenant with that notification so you would know the type of restaurant. here we're

approving any restaurant. >> i kind after agree with the letter we got. there's a lot of the sum lar type of restaurant that are maybe necessarily neighborhood serving. >> just as a reminder, haze -- this neighborhood doesn't allow retail at all. >> i got it. it struck me as odd, we're kind of doing that notification now not knowing the type of restaurant that would occupy that space. if there was discussion a while back when we talked about the grocery store to the north here about having additional grocery space and i think the current retail space is large and it use to be a grosser. they'll all not to exceed 3,000 feet because that's the minimum. if they did want to come back and add a 6,000 or

or 8,000 space, is that required? >> it's required for use side. >> i would like to pick up on stair -- in order for it to -- it needs to be apart of a condition. here we have the skillful architect who understands the concern, but if we let this go without conditioning it, it sends a signal that anybody can go and bulk out the landscape and that's what my concern is. so i'm prepared to make a motion by approving the project with the condition that one, there is a deemphasis on spreading a roof top too far or over the landscape of the roof, but starting to combine them in the manner when you draw an elevation, it does not just

read like a solid wall, but they kind of compose in a manner that they minimize the bulking out of the roof. and that's important to me, and i think everybody understands it. i'm sorry so to say this, unskilled architect will use this to privatize roof escapes at the expense of still having to accommodate publicly necessary open space. as in this case, there's a large element of the public require open space and the other ones are in addition to. it's in the spirit of kind of creating equitable space for the building and its occupants but respecting the affect on others. i'm prepared to make a motion that the department continues to work on this, and starts to really look very carefully at future projects where these types of things are proposed and use some principals to work with architects to work creatively

and skillfully but not to grow a new form of occupancy on those roof. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i want to get back to commissioner hillis's comment because i didn't understand. i can't find in the motion, i guess i'm not looking in the right place, a reference to our approving restaurant use. we don't have to approve a restaurant, right? because it has a right already. >> correct. it does not require a conditional use. so it's included in the project description to satisfy the neighborhood notification requirement. >> but that doesn't mean that the project sponsor is going to put three restaurants or two restaurants in those spaces? >> i believe that's undecided.

>> commissioner antonini. >> a clarification on the motion that has been made. if i understand it correctly, commission moore, we're asking project sponsor to either combine some of the individual accesses to roof or replace the stair penthouses with hatches on the -- on some of the individual ones, is that what you're asking them to do in your motion? >> you can indirectly say yes. i'm asking the architect to more successfully or minimize the impression that we're putting on the roof. >> okay. >> commissioner borden. >> i'm supportive. i wanted to know if haze and cabob might be coming back to the new space and i also -- i like the old

building. i'm in support. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second on the floor to approve with conditions including a condition to minimize the bulk on the roof skate by reducing the size of the roof top stairs using common stairs or personal hatches. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> that passes 7-0. >> item 13 -- c and e at 2223 lumbar street. request for authorization use. >> i'm mary woods of department. the conditional use before you is a request to convert a non conforming hotel to a tourist hotel can a

u-size. it's for existing 3 story building to legalize the dwelling units and to occupy -- when 48 spaces are required. with val lay sur advice, the project will provide 42 off street parking spaces, since last week's commission packet, staff has received one letter of support for the project from the lumbar merchant's business association, and also one letter in opposition to the project expressing concerns about the reduction in the off street parking requirement, about whether there's hotel demand for the increase in a guest room and a couple of inquiries regarding to the signage and the windows for the proposed

project. the department's recommendation is for approve with conditions. the project will convert a legal non conforming motel to a conforming tourist hotel and the project will renovate the property since it's almost 60 -- past 60 years old with seismic upgrade and fire sprinkles, ada accessible, so it would regenerate a lot for the existing building. this concludes my summary of the project. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer it. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nipa and i'm a project sponsor and i live and reside in san francisco. first generation in the city born and raised and we have sponsored this project.

we've owned this building for 30 years, owned and operated throughout its term. we have presented it to a vertical expansion and trying to support the neighborhood in its needs of upgrade and kind of beatification of these old road side motels. i'd like to mention that i'm involved in the city in different aspects. i've sat on committee boards in my community and in the uptown historical district which was spear headed by ren shaw and i talk this as an opportunity for me to build on a motel that was inherited in the family and continues to grow for the san francisco needs. i'd like to introduce gladstone who is our land use attorney and he will be able to provide more details of this project and any questions. i appreciate you hearing us today. thank you.

>> thank you. >> good evening commissioners gladstone. i want to thank mary woods for the comprehensive staff report and i'd like to thank the members of the project team, d pack patel and his staff member bruce berge and architects from sternburg david ball and david sternburg who you have just seen in the case before. the building in question as was said, it was originally at 1954 building called the c captain motel and it was notorious for its illegal activities. d-pack's family took it over and changed it to what you see here today. the building was built in the 50s when the use of cars exploded and the interstate transportation system was being

complete and for that reason, you see a lot of motels up and down lumbar street. however, with the decline of the motels, both physically and in other ways, what we haven't seen is the expected change of changing motels into hotels. several attempts were made in the past 3 years to do that. i worked on one. in both of them, the hotels were approved. in 1 case, unanimously by your commission but cut down by the board of supervisors to such an extent they were not economic feasible and they didn't get built and that of course has made it difficult for others to have the courage to come forward and take those motels down and turn them into motels, but not tonight, and one of the reasons those projects had some issues were they had faced

neighborhood neighbors on the parallel street behind them. unfortunately this project faces a busy commercial area of chestnut street. behind it is the very loud tip see pig, i think it's called with an outdoor live -- very live outdoor area. and therefore, we have not heard problems from the rear. there are a couple of dwelling units above those commercials but not very many. in addition, you know, the -- two the hotels, probably three has closed in the past 10 years. the bridge has closed and the star is closed and the edward the second has turned into another use, so the demand is not being met and as i mentioned

by referring to the pfk consultant result in my presentation, the demand is extremely strong. in fact in the fisherman's warf, the occupancy level is at least -- it was 94% in 2013. so we have a letter from the merchant association and a representative of the residents association telling us they welcome tonight's attempt to turn around the pattern of these declining motels and a loss of motel rooms and some hope that with an approval tonight, hopefully other motel owners will be interested once again in attempting to do the same. as a major gateway to highway 131 to north, this is an important strong impression that is left on travelers and it's important to look better and

some of the existing motels are notorious for their illegal activity at this moment. the rooms hotel price is between $89 a night and for a high seasoned room occupied by four people, $189 a night so this hotel serves middle class tourist and business travelers, middle class who may not have the expense accounts that allows them to stay downtown. the -- this have sod -- you can see the backside of

that vasod is here and the other is outdoor walkways behind it. however, in the new plan, those will become rooms with windows behind that vasod and in the middle of the hotel, the open court yard will have two small light rails with rooms around. of course, the motel is not allowed here under the planning code today so we're turning a non conforming use, legal non conforming use to a conforming one for this site. so in contrast to the existing building, there's some major changes, more seismic safety and that's important in the marina. the building will be fully sprinkler throughout and

it will meet the ada access ability requirements including ada bathrooms. there was an invest neighborhood reports written by the planning department and the mayor's office about the improvement of lumbar street overtime and it noted 29 percent of all vasods are hotel and have huge curb cuts and parking below. as a result, lumbar is a look of a suburban highway from the 1950s. and hopefully this will spur some change. asceticly the new design by benjamin will make the building look less suburban. the minimum windows will be

replaced with windows and the outdoor cafe, there's an cafe but it doesn't have an outdoor space and we'll make it more urban. the ground floor sen. station will do the same. the remove -- the classical corner sis that's on a new building will make the new architecture more honest than what you're seeing today and more urban looking than this suburban look that i see on the facade today. screening the parking will make it look more urban and reduction of the existing large 40-foot curb cut to a 15-foot curb cut will do that as well. signage is probably something most hotel owners would like to increase

in this size. this signage will stay the same and stay at the same level of the street, and thus keeping from making it into a suburban high gloss look. we've agreed with one of our neighbors who was concerned about the sign to two conditions of approval and if i may state them for the record. one is that the sign will not be higher than it is today in the future. and either on its own level or another level and two, it will not be more brightly illuminated and in response to some comments from patricia voy, we have made the ground floor senistion to wood instead of metal. if you have questions for the architect

david he's here to answer them. >> let's open it up for comment. patricia voy. >> good afternoon. my name is connie and i'm located at 2220 lumbar street. i'm here before you to view my opinion in regards to the plan, and to support the plan and to help me pass it. with this plan, my store will expand and it will grow double. that means it will help me grow my business

and increase my sell. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> patricia voy. i've been in favor for this project for 2 years. i was disappointed that they didn't tell us that they changed the architects and the final drawings showed up on friday. i think it's good. they took over the sea captain, the parking was like this. there has not been a rest since he took it over at this location as 10:00 a.m. this morning. he has cleaned it up and the architecture has improved and i ask for the wood at the bottom so that it could look more inviting for people

to come in. if you see metal windows, metal doors, et cetera, it doesn't help, and this could give it enough fa sas. tony's coffee is out stand and it's a reputation throughout the city. go and get their coffee. i'm pleased we have a motel that is turning into a hotel, under good management. and that's what matters, and the architecture i would like to be better, but this is good for me right now. it's a start of a change of a regime and i agree with pam across the street about the signs above because we have residential units being built above and you have large signs particularly neon and it doesn't help the

neighbors across the street and we can do more projects if we work them from the ground floor and we don't find out from the department until later in the process and we need a more open door on this particularly concerning lumbar. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is pam squires and my family own 2353 lumbar and we came before you in december and got approval for our 21-unit condo project and we're moving forward to that, to contract by -- to construct that by the end of the year. i e-mailed everyone a letter supporting the project. i think it's going to be a great first step towards cleaning up lumbar street and

creating a much more - a nicer approach from the golden gate bridge. i would also like to say that i did have concerns about the signage and the project owner and sponsor has agreed to keep the illumination the same and the neon signs the same. that will have an impact to our residential unit and i want to state that i'm looking forward to cleaning up this corridor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there additional public comment. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm familiar with the area

and my doctor's office and i can only imagine what happens with the hotel. i'm seeing an increase with demand with morula jitment uses and not questionable uses that they were party to us which is the case with so many motels. this is the use that will be used and patronized heavily because i think there's a demand for accommodations in san francisco that extends to lumbar. as was brought up by staff, there's quite a few of the motels in this kind of condition and it's a great start. we only have 25 more to go or however many more, but this is a good first step to try to clean up the street and all the things that they've done as well as adding the wood on the bottom and making it appear better -- better appearing facility. it's a good thing, so i'm supportive and i'll move to approve.

>> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i have two questions. one for mr. lindsey. we have a permitted non compliance project, the signage and the agreements about the signage still would have to meet today's, do i understand that's correct? >> yeah, the signage would have to be consistent with article 6 of the planning code. >> so assuming that's a signage would be too large or too much light. it would be modified to today's -- >> any new signage, yes. the signage just to be clear, the signage is not apart of this conditional use. >> i know that. i want to make sure there's not an agreement that can be challenged by your authority to review the signage when it comes forward. the second question is for mr. steinberg.

i'm delighted to see the neighborhood is actively involved. can you talk about the suggestion of the change in material and that being beneficial and supportive of the basic idea of your design? >> you're talking about the whole facade. >> i'm talking about the request for wood verses metal and what that means to you relative to what would you recommend? i'd like to hear you. >> well, i far prefer metal everywhere. i think it's more consistent with the design of the modern design of the building. i'm not sure the exact agreements between people across the street and what not. that's my preference. speaker: is there any recommendation, like, metal [inaudible]. you don't want to have a ground floor and wood and the upper

windows which are facing the streets to be a different material, i just want to make sure that what the department has reviewed with you and what is the discussion in the neighborhood and the overall objective of the architecture statement and that's what i'm interested in. are you going all wood or all metal, i would like to see that coming together with the over lay that you feel that is expressing the building you designed. >> david sternberg, i envision a store front and a store front is typically metal -- metal store front. most newer buildings have metal store fronts and not wooden store fronts. wood store fronts can note something more traditional in general because they have thicker pieces and they have trim around them and things

like that, so. >> i'm asking the department, even when we start to review and make modifications to buildings, we're doing it in the spirit that it still captures the essence and i don't want to mix and match buildings here. i can understand the desire for having them softer -- i'm looking for the department to deliver something which is not just a mix and match. >> and the department hasn't reviewed the wood option -- the project we reviewed included metal. >> i'm very -- i'll be very honest to the commission and to the department, it's difficult for me not to listen to what the neighborhood wants, but modifying a building that hasn't been reviewed by the department as being really acceptable and

what they're bringing to us as approval makes it difficult for me to sit between two chairs. can you address this. >> i think there's a condition that we work with. we'll do that. perhaps the thing to do is rather than specify that it would be wood, perhaps we can work with the architect on a material and a color that isn't keeping with the intent that the neighborhood is looking for. which might be wood or it might be something else, but to allow it to be more flexible. >> i would like to support building approval with that spirit at its core, but i'm really not prepared sitting to just say it has to be wood. i think there is an explanation to make a ground floor softer or more inviting, there's many tools. we don't have to go with what they might be, but i don't think it's the project breaks

or makes it because of that one request or change so i can't support that. i would look for the department to search with the architect about what is it the neighborhood is looking for and the detail and the textual quality of the building on ground floor and leave that as a recommendation for you to work out. is there a second to that motion? >> there is a motion already on the floor. >> i believe the question is to the maker of the motion. >> commissioner antonini. can we a men the motion to make that part. >> right, i think we'll continue to work with staff to try to craft the facade that would be to the contextual of the neighborhood but gives the architect