certificate of occupancy of 235 o'farrell street being contingent upon the certificate of occupancy of 374 5th street. and ultimately, i think the sponsor's actions in this recent weeks has shown the marked improvement from their engagement prior to this and it shows a very good first step towards ensuring that the property and the neighborhood itself will be of a high quality down the road. but we ask you, commissioners, to help us with accountability issues, making sure that not just in the short term but in the long term that there is some way in which we can ensure that the neighborhood concerns aren't just something which will be left behind in the dust once we get past this hearing. thank you very much and thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed.

commissioner olague? commissioner olague: there goes the mic. well, i met with the project sponsor yesterday, i think it was, and we talked and i think that i can see that they really did listen to the concerns that were raised by many commissioners last time here, the improvements on the building i think are really nice. there's a rooftop garden and a nice lounge on the bottom flooru kitchen on a couple floors, i think, and a really nice big kitch own one of the floors. so i think the quality of life for the tenants who will ultimately reside here is going to be very nice. and i do want to say that even at the last hearing, i was kind of ready to move forward with the project given some of my familiarity of s.r.o.'s as being a good source of low-income housing for people who either earn unlimited incomes or with

the economy being what it is, who are finding themselves in situations they didn't find themselves in five years ago. so i think that the nature of s.r.o. housing is a little different in some instances and i believe there are even relaxations in the code that encourage this type of housing for -- it's sort of affordable by design, i guess, is another way of putting it. so i'm pretty much in support, i'm very much in support of this project, and i've worked with, you know, like jeff and antionettea and all these folks over the years on a lot of the issues on the s.r.o.'s and we've also worked with mr. patel and mr. shaw. i went by the aldera few years ago and it had the reputation of being a tentative place, it was a scary place. and its transformation has been pretty outrageous so i want to congratulate you for being able

to do that and we're starting to hear the same and see the same at the baldwin hotel which i think is really an indication that you take your job in managing these buildings with a lot of pride so i just want to thank you for helping to see a transformation. some of these buildings along sixth street. i know that a lot of people have concern with loitering issues. i think one of the issues that folks don't realize is that sixth street is one of the most underrepresented as it relates to open space so it's sort of like, if you're in a small room and there's not a community room and not a rooftop garden and it can be cold up there even if there is a rooftop garden, sometimes there aren't a lot of options if you just want to leave your room so i think the issue of open space is one that i hope the city decides to look at seriously because south of market is unrepresentative as it relates to that issue. the raymond hotel, i think, is a really, an excellent example. it's a senior housing bell.

building. i talked to the institute on aging recently. there were thousands of people waiting to fill the rooms at the new geary street project where the cornett theater was. there's under 200 rooms and thousands of people on the waiting list. so clearly, the need for affordable housing is intense in san francisco. so i'm happy with the modifications that the project sponsor made and as i said, i was ready to move ahead with the project but then it seems that the conversation went to an interesting place and ultimately, i think, we probably ended up with an even better project. in a way maybe it all worked out for everyone in the long run. so, i also - i'm going to go ahead and move that we approve this. >> second. commissioner olague: but i do want to mention that i'm going to go along with the staff recommendation that ask that we not include these conditions in

the -- as part of the permitting. so i know that ultimately perhaps the project sponsor along with some of the neighborhood groups can continue to engage. thing given - you're going to be managing this building and given what i've seen in the baldwin and in the alder, then i think chances are it's going to end up being a very well managed project but there's a couple of -- i wasn't going to go there, but i think i have to. there are a couple of points that were made in this agreement that i feel uncomfortable with, personally, and that's why i can't move ahead with it. and that would be 10, 11 and 12. i think it makes a lot of assumptions. and i'm concerned that if we don't apply those same standards to condominiums and other types of housing, why would we single out s.r.o. and s.r.o. housing projects with these types of additional conditions so i think

ultimately the neighbors with the community have managed to come up with a really excellent project and i'm glad that, in many instances, we've seen kind of an evolution in the attitudes of some of the neighbors and hopefully it will continue in that positive light and again, there are people like mr. buckley and others who are always available to help to facilitate some of these conversations between neighbors and s.r.o. residents and those sort of things. president miguel: commissioner suygaya? commissioner moore isn't here, obviously, but she was one of the commissioners who was strong on making some interior changes for liveability and i think those -- i can't speak for her, but i think the changes have been made to at least this commissioner, it looks like other commissioners' satisfactions. so i appreciate the project sponsor moving ahead with those.

i also was not going to go to the private agreement. have you already signed that agreement? the thing is, is that we can't attach these to our approval because they're not enforceable through the city, so, you know, we couldn't do anything about that anyway. but i was just curious if you've signed this or -- >> we have not signed the agreement but we have agreed to work with them with the cngs that are proposed in there and if there's something that's not enforceable or not even legal, i'm not sure what term to use -- but we're willing to work with neighbors to hash out these issues and come to some sort of understanding. commissioner sugaya: that's fine. just so the neighbors understand the staff's position that the city can't legally include these in the motion anyway. however you want to work it out privately is another matter and is out of our hands, but i did

circle 10, 11 and 12 myself, so, you know, it's no use beating -- going any further on that, but -- since we can't do anything about it. i'm quite in favor of it and i know that a friend of mine has been staying downtown. i don't know -- i think she's -- it's maybe an equivalently priced hotel called the fusion. it's relatively new, close by, i think, in that same area. i think it's a little cheaper, isn't it? i think the price range may be close to holiday inn? >> it's higher. it's more boutique-like. commissioner sugaya: it's not all that expensive, i don't think. >> comparatively. commissioner sugaya: she doesn't have money, so, you know. anyway, so i'm quite interested in seeing movement in that direction also, just to enforce

tourism in san francisco. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think that commissioner suygaya and olague pretty much said what i would say. it's a great project. we really appreciate you that worked with the community, that you already, with the other projects you're in charge of, done a great job of making them a high standard of residential hotels. i've had the privilege of touring many of the residential hotels in the city. in the late 1990s i worked on legislation related to the hotels. i've seen a lot of the interior of them, hotels that have not been upgraded compared to hotels that have been upgraded and have walked and delivered meals on thanksgiving to residential hotel tenants and there's a huge disparity about the quality of conditions in which people live and what is our de facto affordable housing in this city because we don't really have much so i applaud you to providing great spaces and working with the neighborhood. i also agree with you about attaching conditions and get upset when we are being

discriminatory -- when we are suggesting discriminatory practices, whether it's types of people that live someplace, music, et cetera. i personally find it problematic and we have to recognize the constitution and people's rights to be placed higher. it's important, people have lots of things happen in their lives and conditions that leave them in whatever position they're in and if we're not going to enforce those standards with condominiums and other projects, we ought not to enforce them for hotels and it's a dangerous precedent for this city if we were to do that. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: . i really like this project and i'll tell you why, for a lot of reasons. i think it brings up a concept we haven't used very much, and i'd like to call it a restoration trade. it's a formula for the future. what we do a lot of, we build new construction and have a percentage of affordable housing

that's built usually new somewhere else. once in a while it involves the restoration of an existing building and i think we have a lot of buildings in san francisco that are need of restoration and if we can use this kind of concept in the future, be it blending condos or market rate with affordable or tourist with affordable, what happens is, we get two winners. we get both buildings restored into a condition that is usable, safe, providing affordable housing, providing other uses in the other building and in this case providing a greater number of affordable units, so i think we got to look at this a little more closely. if we'd been looking at these things in thec if we still hadg,ñ -- we see thf

the victorians and we still have a lot to do there. as many mentioned, it activates the street with the restaurant. that's a great use. they did a comparison chart on all the s.r.o.'s and this was one of the ones that provided more bathrooms and a kitchen and a deck and, you know, comparatively fewer rooms and i think it's a really good example. and, as far as the conditions, yeah, i would agree. i mean, i think you have to be -- treat everyone the same and i have no opposition to some time in the future looking at situations where we treat condos or market rate apartments the same way we would as everything else, not that all these conditions should be done anyway, but, i mean, it has to be done across the board and a lot of times, you know, crime and problems exist in places where you'd least expect it and higher income areas, you're

still having a lot of problems, so to that extent, i agree, but i think there are some things in here that kind of make sense. project sponsor and the neighborhood can work together on their own privately implement whatever they want to do. architecturally, it's very well done, as i mentioned. it will become seismically safe, plumbing, electrical will be upgraded. we need that a lot. so i think this is really a good thing, we're gaining two previously vacant or under-utilized or poorly-utilized buildings for two buildings that are going to really add a lot to the neighborhoods they're in. i think it's a great idea. i'm very much in support. president miguel: i'm also in support of what are two projects. it's unusual. we have projects that come before this commission that require actually the north light court as an overflow roof and to

an extent, this, in my mind, is as important as many of those. number one, the restorational on o'farrell street, of bringing in a price point that does not exist in the middle of famous downtown san francisco is something in itself. and perhaps it's been a little overlooked with everything we're talking about south of market. that's a very major situation, as commissioner antonini said, these types of dual projects perhaps this can create a standard for that. i think it's very, very important. the other thing is, this s.r.o., the way it is, and i compliment the architect on it, because we have architects who do not listen to us, by the way, to say

the least, and who come back several times and still do not. you heard what was said. and i think you did a very good job in working with it. i appreciate the comparison charts. i think they show us and the public the difference. this is a standard for s.r.o.'s that i hope others who are of like-minded conversions will take into consideration, that this is possibly at least the direction of the way things should go. i know i've undoubtedly mentioned before and you've probably heard me, the fact that s.r.o.'s certainly, judging from the information i've received from my parents in their knowledge of what were s.r.o.'s in the '20s and '30s in

san francisco, probably many of the same buildings, because they were in existence then, were single working class residences and that's what they were. they aren't someplace to house unfortunates as some of the people look at some of them and have now, and they should not be looked at in that regard. and i really appreciate the fact that this is of the quality, at least presumably, the way it's going to be put together. as to the additional agreement of conditions, i understand how and why they were written even though i agree with my fellow commissioners that several of the points there are not only unnecessary, but i don't think should be in there on other grounds, as well. on the comment about the

six-month condition, i do understand what mr. shaw said, and i agree with his basic premise on it. i believe in my mind that the main reason for it in this instance has nothing to do with tenants, has everything to do with management, and the trust that is going to be necessary for the management to actually follow through with what they wanted to do, and at least that's the way i'm looking at it. and the way i hope everyone's looking at it. it also gives the opportunity, because of these -- this additional agreement between the parties, that they can come back at that time and say publicly, is it being done, isn't it being done? so it gives that opportunity, as well. but i look at it as a control on

management and not a control on the tenant population itself. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: it's not untypical with a lot of projects, we often bring them back after six months just to make sure the conditions and they're being handled as we approved them. commissioner olague: sometimes we just get a memo. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. actually, it's for no d.r. and approval. >> take d.r. and approve with condition, the revised department conditions. >> okay. motion on the floor is to take d.r. and approve with the revised conditions and that is

for 12a and 12c and the zoning administrator will address 12b on. that motion, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: aye. >> commissioner suygaya? commissioner sugaya: isn't 12c a conditional use? >> 12a, take dr and approve with conditions. antonini, borden, suygaya, olague, miguel? [unanimous aye] >> with that, we close the public hearing on the item. if anyone would like a copy of the variance position letter, please leave your name and address with the commission secretary. thank you.

>> thank you, commissioners, on 12c for approval as has been revised. commissioner antonini? borden? suygaya? olague? miguel? [unanimously approved] >> thank you, commissioners. those items have been approved. commissioners, you are now at general public comment where members of the public may address you for up to three minutes. president miguel: is there any general public comment on non-agenda items? seeing none, public comment is closed. and this hearing is closed at the unusual time of 4:02 p.m. i think this is a record, or close.

supervisor campos: good morning, everyone, and welcome to the december 2, 2010, meeting of the board of supervisors rules committee. my name is david campos. i'm joined by a committee

member -- joined by a committee member supervisor -- joined by committee members supervisor mar, and supervisor alioto-pier will be unable to join us. before we begin, if we could have a motion to excuse supervisor alioto-pier. before we begin the business of the committee, would like to take a brief moment to recognize the amazing work that has been done by the clerk of the committee, linda wong. [applause] on behalf of the entire members of the committee, on behalf of the staff for the tremendous professionalism and excellence with which you approach your job, we just wanted to take this

opportunity to thank you for an amazing job. [applause] i do not know, supervisor mar, if you wanted to add anything to that. supervisor mar: i just wanted to add that you are like a diamond sparkling in the sand. supervisor campos: very poetic. i do not think i could beat that. with that, if we could please call item one. >> item 1, hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending december 17, 2011, to the sweatfree procurement advisory group. there are two seats and two applicants. supervisor campos: my understanding is that the applicants for different reasons are not able to be here, but we have someone here from the department. good morning. >> good morning.

i also want to comment about linda. we have in dealing with her in our department, and she has been very professional when we have had to deal with appointments, so i have had great pleasure working with her. supervisor campos: yes, absolutely. >> my name is carmen herrera. i'm with the office of labor standards, and as staff the sweatfree -- i staff tehe sweatfree advisory group. we had three members that actually resigned because they moved out of the area, and currently, we have one mayoral vacancy and two supervisory vacancies.

sarah leiber church moved to the east coast, and mr. chris honigsberg moved up north, so they are broke no longer in the area to serve -- they are both no longer in the area to serve on the sweatfree. i can tell you a little bit about both candidates. william sokol is highly qualified. unfortunately, he could not make it because he is out of the state due to his work, but he was highly recommended by several international organizations. one was the international labor organization and also the workers' rights consortium. he was highly recommended to serve on the human rights seat. he is a lawyer by trade, and he

has expertise in issues of international law. he has also been an instructor at laney college, at uc- berkeley, and most recently at san francisco state university. he works in labor law and international law. i think he would have a lot to offer, and he is one candidate for human rights. the other candidate is ms. elizabeth morton, and her background -- by trade, she is an attorney. she does have a lot of expertise in issues of labor law in reference to contracts, and i think she would be a big asset to the advisory group in reference to her background. she also could not make it do to

the fact that she had to be in court representing a client of hers. that is all i can say pretty much. supervisor campos: thank you. just a quick question for the clerk -- is there a timing issue in terms of when we have to act on these? >> no, mr. share. -- no, mr. chair. supervisor campos: why don't we open up to public comment? is there any member of the public that would like to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i would like to say i do know of bill sokol's work -- work. i know that it is a very

important advisory group for our board, and it would be good if we could continue this, i think, so that we could hear from both of the candidates, so i move that we continue the item. supervisor campos: thank you, and i would agree with that. i think it is important to hear from an applicant, especially for something as important as this advisory group, so why don't we take that without objection? thank you very much. we could call the next item please. >> -two, hearing to consider appointing five members, terms ending april 27, 2011, and april 27, 2012, to the soma community stabilization fund community advisory community. supervisor campos: thank you. we have five individuals and seven applicants. it is my understanding that one

applicant applied for the wrong seat and will not be pursuing seat four. why don't we begin by asking each applicant to address the committee? it is an opportunity for you to make a brief statement about yourself and your interests -- your interest in this advisory committee. ms. ford, welcome. >> thank you, supervisors. i have served on this commission for two terms, and this is my request to serve a third. i am honored by serving on this commission. it is an historic piece of legislation, as you know, that established the funding for the work that we do in the south of market, and we are a full- bodied