part of the ground floor, a lobby being this zone, the rest occupied by a large restaurant and bar as well as a basement. we have a very small basement occupancy for a laundry and a break room for the staff. this is the ground floor plan. the only part of the ground floor we're occupying as a small lobby, just enough for a few seats and a desk and the existing elevator and stair. it will be well appointed, but minimal.

ically and they'll be double paned, also, for environmental reasons. it's an improved window but visually will look the same as what was there already. the other thing about the second floor is there will be a small public area on the second floor. [bell] president miguel: thank you. if there's more questions, we'll call you back. thank you. foster weekes. >> good afternoon, my name is foster weekes with clementennine cares of san francisco, a

neighborhood organization on the west side of the district. earlier, we expressed concerns about this project based on two things, one being the previous history of the building surrounding its use as a tourist hotel and then after the fire, the way it was taken care of or not taken care of and then the second thing being from our research, what would be best practices as far as a successful s.r.o. and since then, we've met with the owners and their representatives and expressed these issues to them and they've come back to us with items that we think are reasonable. and they have been presented to the summer forward group in arbmere sully. we think that all these issues that were addressed by the sponsors of the project look like they would meet our needs and then therefore ask that

those be attached to the project if it's approved. more fully, we also ask for your help in helping to enforce that these things are done and taken care of. our concerns, again, go back to the previous history of the building and then making it the best possible s.r.o. that it can be which the owners have expressed they want to do. that's where we ask for your help in this if it goes forward. thank you. president miguel: thank you. doug cooper? >> thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to address you today. i am speaking in favor of both parties here. i think the developers have an interesting project that will serve a certain need with the

affordability and scale of housing as well as the neighbor's concern about the project that's been long-standing due to previous occupants of that space. if the new owners have met their concerns and can guarantee there will be sensible and trustworthy management at the site, i think most of the contention at this project will be solved. there are still liveability standards and other people are working on the project but if you can help come up with a way that the pates and the new management team will make sure that the concerns of the new neighbors are met and they run it responsibly, i think everything will go well and i look forward to continuing to be a neighbor at this site. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? anyone else? >> good afternoon commissioner miguel. we're representing both 235 o'farrell street and 374 5th street. i think you've heard a lot of

support from the broader neighborhood and in addition from the d.r. requesters and how far we've come with respect to 374 5th street dealing with the operational concerns you raised, changes to the interior configuration, adding more private bathrooms, really go to the heart of what the project was intended to be, which was to be the first rung of housing in the city but providing amenities, the vast majority of s.r.o. hotels in the city don't have. with respect to 235 o'farrell street, a few speakers mentioned that, again, we have a situation with a vacant building so the swapping that's going to occur under the hotel conversion ordinance is not going to affect any existing tenants. that project, which will be a holiday inn express, which is a unique plan, only one is available in san francisco, again, will serve a different price point for union square. it will be more affordable to more tourist, more middle-income tourists that visit our city internationally and nationally and we'll still also serve

business needs as mr.somanski showed there are business conference facilities so it will be a nice kind of hotel and particularly in that location consistent with what's in the rest of the neighborhood. the other point about the holiday inn express that's important to keep in mind that that's a category one significant building that's being preserved and used as a hotel. what i want to emphasize is -- and i think it's been emphasized, but to pull together, the 5th street property has to be approved in order for the o'farrell street property because of the way the hotel conversion ordinance works with the 23 vacant units going from that property over to 5th street to enable that to be a fully operational residential hotel and it's important to keep in mind that those 23 units will be subject to the hotel conversion ordinance which has additional level of protections for permanent residents in addition to what our rent control ordinance provides. i wanted to leave you with that and let you know i'm available for any questions.

thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> mr. president, we are actually hearing this item somewhat as a conditional use item and it's not, it's a d.r. we did not call the d.r. request first as we generally do. so maybe we can ask the d.r. requester to come forward. >> good afternoon, president miguel, vice president olague, commissioners, good afternoon. i would like to reiterate the fact that the project sponsors have come together with me and over the past week and through some discussion and negotiation comes to a certain set of conditions which we would like to voluntarily attach to the project as conditions of approval. prior to that, that being said, i do like -- i would like to reiterate some of the reasons and concerns that brings us to this place today. firstly and foremost, it's not a question about population, it's a question about management

during the period of time where the travelers inn was in operation, there were several issues with the way in which the business was run. and including, but more importantly, after the period of time when the building was vacant after the fire in 2006. there were still some number of violation which is occurred which ultimately the building owners cannot escape all responsibility for. there were several issues with the way in which the trash disposal was being taken care of, the fact that the neighborhood roof was being used as a work surface, et cetera. and on top of which the biggest concern was that the operator and owner of the building was showing a pattern of behavior of only attending to issues unless they were absolutely needed to do so.

but ultimately, the nature of what we're doing is we do want to set a higher standard for this building and make sure that s.r.o.'s going forward are setting good and high-quality living standards for their residents and that's what we want to talk about because antionettea, as she said earlier, it's about the person who's behind the desk, the person who's behind the property itself. commissioner moore brought up questions about the nature of the floor plans which is why i believe we're talking about the floor plans in and of themselves. but ultimately, i think that with the conditions that the project sponsor and i have agreed upon, we believe that the concerns of the neighborhood are addressed and that if there are other conditions which you commissioners wish to attach, we would welcome them. i do want to speak towards the idea which commissioner suygaya did bring up the last time

around, which was making the 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.