Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Hotel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose 'Moxie' hotel plan at Bay and Columbus; commission signals intent to disapprove
Summary
Neighbors, childcare providers and residents testified against a proposed Moxie Hotel at Bay and Columbus, citing proximity to a preschool, senior housing and a teen center; labor and others supported job creation. The Planning Commission voted an intent to disapprove and continued the item to Nov. 2.
A proposed four‑story Moxie Hotel at Bay and Columbus drew intense public opposition at the Sept. 28 Planning Commission hearing, where residents and neighborhood groups said the project would harm a block anchored by senior housing, a preschool and a community teen center.
Project attorney Mark Loper and architect Michael Stanton described a contextual hotel design and public‑realm safety improvements around the intersection. The sponsor said the design had been modified to reduce rooftop activity and move the main entrance to Bay Street. Supporters including labor representatives urged approval, saying the project would create union jobs.
Opponents said the hotel’s marketing, a 24/7 bar and a rooftop terrace were incompatible with the adjacent North Beach Place residential community, the Kai Ming Head Start preschool, and a nearby teen center. Multiple residents and service providers described the project as a threat to children, seniors and a fragile neighborhood ecology and urged that the site be used for housing or more community‑serving uses. One speaker noted the hotel’s website language and urged commissioners to consider impacts of a “party” brand adjacent to low‑income and vulnerable residents.
After several hours of testimony, Commissioner Moore moved an intent to disapprove the conditional‑use request; the motion (seconded) passed and the Commission continued the matter to Nov. 2 for additional work and possible redesign. Commissioners who voted to continue cited the location’s sensitivity and the need for further neighborhood engagement and design changes to address rooftop, bar and access concerns.
The project sponsor said the design changes already made (relocation of the entry, smaller rooftop, changes to glazing and materials) attempted to respond to neighborhood concerns. Opponents pressed for outright denial or for the city to consider affordable housing options for the site. The item will return to the Commission on Nov. 2.
