was passed in the 70's for the reason that we are here today. this is to preserve his that are in hotels and mixed residential hotels and insure that those units remain forever in the city housing stock. the benefit that this project poses is that they are providing an additional 23 units. these are not your traditional units, these are units that are at a hundred and 10 square feet. they will have a wash basin and will be fully furnished. something to toot our horn about is that we are doing and access of two q any questions. -- two community kitchens. we are providing a 1450 square

foot for open space. one of the significant things to keep in mind is that this is one of the open public spaces for property. we are strongly encouraging people to do this. we are providing high quality housing and the conditions that the city has proposed means all of the concerns with respect to safe and healthful operation. the last thing i want to state is in respect to some of the allegations that have made. they have 30 or more code violations. as a former to get the city attorney, i can tell you that the city would love to be part of the hotels.

>> two speaker cards in favor of the project sponsor. >> hello, everyone. this is south of market street. this issue went through the community. we approved this. quite simply, the reality is that we had two options. we use the building or this remains vacant. there are really no permanent residence. everyone has been there for three or four days a week. if those other situations as we get through the behavior

problems. outhis is better than it has be. we have to have a lawsuit. we had a lawsuit against the previous owners 15 years ago. this has improved and this is essentially a used building with people in it and it will be better for the neighborhood. i would encourage this project to --

>> good afternoon, commissioners. when i was young, i heard a statement from john kennedy who said "we are who we are today because of our yesterday." only by going 3 yesterday can we understand going to tomorrow. all of these for the most part have the same problem. it just happens that some of them are not at the neighborhood like you find on fifth street. most people avoid the area and they don't want to have any accounting.

we can define the area and improve the quality of life issues. when asked whether or not there are decent family housing, we said no. considering what could be done, this would not be in the best interests of families to share that space. there is an increase of green space on the rooftop.

they recognize there were problems in the past but they were willing to comeback. they have made it perfectly clear that they are more than willing to work with the labour association. i've heard the frustrations and nice share the same frustration. here we are today. what can we do to improve business? when you improve our subcommittee, you come out with a subcommittee. they scrutinized the process. there is an income by which you don't find a lot of the social services. i urge you to move ahead.

>> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. just a brief history. this is back before there was a popular jazz club back in the 80's. hawks after the earthquake was closed, it was rebuilt. the city came back and it was the telly. let me tell you, this was a very popular place. hi anyway, then the fire happened.

then the tourists would have a residential hotel in said. this building will make all of the building codes for off brand use. you can have on new fixtures throughout. you have furnished rooms and two kitchens. you have to have a committee room and they're not really required in the hotel's. it will have a lot of process to it. one of the other speakers mentioned instead of having people who are coming by spending two or three days and then leaving, you can have people living there it cannot work out.

i urge you to go ahead and approve this project. >> you each have two minutes for rebuttal. >> my main concern with what has been said is the forgiving of past transgressions. i believe all of those people who of spoken have been concerned about this. the concern is the actual situation that some provisions have teeth. some things are attached to this permit that we can hold up and say that you people have made this mistake again and hopefully it will not come to that. we will go back to the planning commission, we will go back to

enforcement. this is not about the usability. i have to work on this. hhennes i don't suppose that ths is a nice restaurant and this is a bit funny. also, my notes say that i did thus received any notice of this. i have been there for nearly 20 years and it seems like i'm just the sort of president that the project sponsor might be concerned to speak with and that did not happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to address the allegation that i did not respond to any request for

trying to reach some kind of settlement or agreement with the project sponsor. in fact, i've actually written about this so i would like to consider this possibility. the last e-mail exchange that i had is a discussion about this. this is an untruth characterization of the facts. one of the committee members actually chastise the project sponsor for not actually attending a single one of the recommendations.

this was three meetings that was for several months. i would like to bring of the fact the building has in fact been empty since at least 2007. when we are talking about the availability to the city, why are the project sponsors actually sitting on this. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. i want to talk about support we have gotten.

we had the opportunity to increase the housing stock. this is a different type of tourist hotels. we did reach out but organizations. we felt this was most sufficient. >> we were truly unable to find a location in the tree. we really struggled with trying to find a place to do that. there's something to be said again about the idea that while

me all one-family houses, this use is really appropriate for this location. this is affordable by design. this is intended to be for working people. this is not being geared towards a traditional population. >> thank you. >> we have been falling this for a few months and this is a difficult issues. i am concerned with what i saw with the neighborhood groups in

terms of the web site. i forget your last name. what ended up coming out with something pretty positive. many of the neighbors became more concerned about the quality of life issues for the people who would ultimately be living in this hotel. i did not get the sense after the conversation with the neighbors that this was an issue of people just not wanting a stereotyped of a certain person who lives next to them. unfortunately, there is some constraints in the code and these rooms are 110 feet. there's something about the hotel conversion of ordinance. i think that this probably would be the appropriate type of housing for families,

unfortunately. because this is too small. along sixth street there is a project called families who live in sro's and to the issues that they deal with. this is a challenging living situation. the rooms are small, 110 square feet. again, it is good -- the code does not require that they have kitchens or bathrooms in each unit. part of the benefit of that is that then they become more affordable by design. but think that there needs to be some reform has far as this is concerned. sometimes there are not enough

bathrooms basis that are adequately cared for. as you know, the code relaxes the open space requirements. if you want a quality of life for people who live there, you should be providing space on each floor. there should be some open space required. that is what the project sponsor offered. there needs to be some reform in terms of how some of these are offered. i respected lot of what you have to say on this subject. the neighbors bring some interesting points but some are not able to be resolved. i thought that this was the perfect idea for maybe a senior

housing. not perfect for so many seniors are living in poverty in the city and on limited income. this would provide affordable by design living space. there are not elevators, i don't think, in this space. they are not required to provide those. then the master lease idea came up. i thought maybe we could have a supportive services site and the family there is not with city funding available. this might be a good idea for that. what we are left with is what we see here but i think they raised

some good concerns. so what i think that i'm willing to move ahead with approval with the conditions imposed but somehow i a would like to know that there is a report back to us and some kind of continued conversations with the neighbors to make sure that this is being managed well and there is some open communication.

some of the neighbors say they were not contacted by the project sponsor. and once this is an operation, we have some sense that the management is going well and there is a good neighborhood in place. we have seen a lot of push back from residents. there was a project in the

tenderloin recently where people protested against this sort of use. i think that there is some hope here that this would work better. there is some accountability of what has not occurred in the past. i will go ahead and move that we to prove his conversion but i want the city attorney to put some language in so that they are not sure how to do it or what to say. there are some commissioners to want to speak. i was stuck there and see where the conversation goes.

>> i think this is a microcosm of some of the problems. i'm not just talking about these, on talking about some of the motels. there are a number of them. there are activities that are unsafe and hazardous to the tenants there and criminal activities and somehow their license never gets full. this is a little alarming. i guess my point is that of like to see this go forward because i would like this to be a win-win situation.

while more maybe better, quality might be important to. they can have their own lease and possibly their own kitchens. if you start getting more people in there, having bathrooms and their makes more sense. maybe staff could let me know about the conditions. i saw a list of conditions in

our paper work. there were information about burglaries', drug offenses. are those part of our conditions. >> those are not what we have proposed. >> the project sponsor had not looked at the conditions. each of those applications have a list of conditions. we try to figure out which one we could actually in force and that is how the conditions that we had here came about. the other conditions that we did not include for those we could not in force. >> this seems to be what the

neighbor is interested. -- is interested in. are these not able to be enforced? >> i will defer to the zoning of administrator on that. >> thank you. the issue here, many of these are under the purview of the renter. that is probably under their jurisdiction in terms of occupancy. we feel that many of those would go beyond the authority of the planning department and we would be able to effectively implement those and we did not see the purpose of those and we could not implement that. >> is it possible to have recommendations for those conditions? >> it would be beyond our

purview. >> that would be something i would like to see done. i would like to make an amendment to the motion on the floor that we have a redesigned to include a bathroom in each of these units, the elimination of the common bathrooms, and how many units you end up putting in, i would hope that you could have 23 or more. >> a and does not convinced that this can be done. this does not mean that we would not want to have this conversation. i don't think that this is something that we can require although this is something that

we frequently discussed. >> my thought is said to don't think they have to be limited to 110 feet. obviously you could make the and is larger to be able to accommodate that. i think the bathroom would be an important feature. >> i would like to approach the issue from another angle and engage mr. sanchez.

if it would be anything to have 24 units including four bathrooms and more than half of it is 50 feet away and this is somewhat ridiculous. this is asking for trouble. i would like to ask minter sanchez with corridors which are three by 4 foot wide, you have people rushing towards those bathrooms, what kind of safety hazards to you cause when you have people standing in that corridor waiting.

i find the distribution of necessity somewhat -- why not you or rooms with better distributed amenities. the committee rooms are barely 110 square feet with 20-25: units per floor.