revised plans, right, miss peugeot. >> that's correct. >> but would we have to take d.r. and approve the project with those revised plans? >> it would be cleaner just to recognize the fact that there have been plans that have been revised. >> so we would take d.r. and approve the project as proposed or revised. >> yes. >> commissioner moore? >> they did in spirit what we asked them to do. the only thing which doesn't work is that the connection still makes it a single-family residence, and since we do not have any enforcement mechanisms by which we can ultimately separate these units, i am unable to support the project as proposed unless it is really designed as two independent units, which is what we need to have delivered here. there is no capablity within the city of san francisco. everybody wants to do that, but that's exactly what we are

tasked not to do. we have to bring two completely independent units to the market, and they have to function as such. and for that reason, unless this is basically properly delineated in a manner that we need to support it, i cannot support the proposal as proposed. >> marselle peugeot, planning department staff. that's something i just noticed, in order for this project to be code compliant, the two doors to have to be removed. there would be to have a wall separating them? these would have to be two separate and independ enterally functioning units. >> you see that right in the upper part of the drawing where the stair comes down and there is an opening from the garage into the unit as well as from the up stairs down into the unit and that doesn't work. >> but you could make that space a common space with

access to both units, couldn't you, so both units accessed it off the garage. >> family room? >> no. could you get access from both units to the garage, but separately, but have kind of a common area that -- >> you could not come out of the unit there and go into the garage, no. the unit has to be completely separate. you would have to come either through the side door out of the breezeway there -- >> well, it does. it does do that. >> at this moment, the two units would come off the same landing. one goes into the unit, one goes into the garage. it's a lower part of the a-2 drawing, and the wall to the garage would just indicate it's a 20 weighted door would have to be closed. >> commissioner moore, both

units are accessed separately. both units are accessed from the bottom right there down the hallway into the unit, and then, and then both have access through that one stairwell into the garage. >> yeah, but that would have to be closed. that is where the tipping unit is that the two units are still ekt canned, so t secretarie connected. >> all right. so would you want to take d.r. and just modify the -- approve the project as proposed and modi modify it so that there are separate access points into the garage from the unit. there's not a separate access unit from the garage. >> how would we best handle that? i'm looking for your guidance here. >> i believe there's two projects that you're taking d.r. on. this is also a matter of code compliance, so it would be something that we would review

back at the department, as well? so i believe either way would be suitable, your choice. >> the motion we could make is basically requiring that we have a code compliant separate adu as required by the code, and there are no ways around that because that is what it is, and then how -- it's a single car garage from what i can tell, any way, so it's probably the larger upstairs unit which uses the garage and not the lower upt. >> is th >> -- unit. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> so is that a motion to support the proposed project with the adu? >> yes. >> okay. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously,

6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your final discretionary review for item 14. case number 2013.0254 drp at 56 mason street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. item before you is a request for discretion year review for window restoration and alterations at 56 mason street located at the southeast intersection of mason street at eddy street within an rc-4 street. the building is listed as a contributory building -- [ inaudible ] under article 11 as well as a contributor to the tenderloin district on the national register. the building is a four story mason ry apartment hotel typical to the surrounding neighbor. the legal use of the property is a residential hotel with 41

is single occupancy units and commercial spaces at the ground story. the proposed scope of work under the permit is for the restoration of 75 existing windows on the upper three floors of the two primary facades along mason and eddy streets, and the replacement. nonhistoric storefront along eddy street, the east frontage. neither this apartment nor previously approved permits seek to change the legal use of the property. the request for discretionary review has been filed by sue hester on behalf of san franciscans for reasonable growth, citing concerns that the project would facilitate the conversion of the residential hotel to a tourist hotel. the existing 41 legal sro units at the subject property were vacated in 2012 for renovations and have not been reoccupied due to significant construction delays. the property has been subject

to a stipulated injunction filed by the san francisco city attorney's office in december of 2014, in addition to supervision under a court appointed special master. the building is currently stated -- pardon me. slated for completion at the end of april 2018, and prior tenants will be granted standard first right occupancy of units. the item was heard and approved before the historic preservation commission on november 15, 2017, with the condition that staff inform the planning commission, board of supervisors and mayor's office of the community's concerns regarding the potential loss of single room occupancy units at the subject property. please note that the permits for interior renovations were approved administratively for rehabilitation of the 57 rooms with no proposed change of use in may of 2013. any removal of sro units would require a conditional use authorization for the removal of affordable housing, as well

as for the intenseification of use under the planning code. additionally, such action would be subject to provisions of chapter 41 of the planning code, which requires providing of comparable units and provides first rights to former tenants. the department recommends that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed, with the condition of approval that the subject property, which as i stated has 41 sro units will continue to be regulated in conformity with the department of building inspection's housing inspection and all applicable city codes. that concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any comments. >> all right. thank you. miss hester?

>> we're microphone. >> it lost the thing. >> i have a -- i'm going to show a schedule fof us, andr u have copies for you, but i'm going to do that on the

overhead. >> all right. you've got five minutes. >> sue hester, sfrg. projects in the tenderloin, especially residential hotels, don't get the notice that people in the residential neighborhoods get. the first hearing, the first notice on this hotel was in coordination with the hpc hearing, and at that point, because i got one -- i get weird notices. i got that, and it asked for d.r. -- asked for review, a hearing by the hpc. and after they acted, i filed for d.r. as part of our team. this is a residential hotel, and the tenants were all eliminated by the owner, and --

to do rehabilitation, and there's a provision in the residential hotel ordinance that allows for temporary relocation while you're doing work. he emptied the hotel out. my schedule has the wrong date. it was the -- it was emptied out by the end of 2012, so they emptied the hotel out, and the tenants started looking for housing with their -- they had some money bought out. between now -- between the hotel being vacated and now, the tenants have been -- several of them have died. others have looked for housing unsuccessfully. people are homeless. there is no way this planning department currently deals with

permits for residential hotels, and people have to just go away. that's a violation of the law, it's a violation of the municipal code. there's no enforcement power other than a lawsuit by the tenants or if something drops out of the cloud, planning department can review a permit if it is routed them and say no. the second page is also a pamg of tpamg -- page of the permits. this was tediously compiled. i did my own, and miss kirby did one, as well. and the permits tell you that they weren't even sent to the planning department. building department did them over the counter. at one point early in the

process, in 2013, 2012, the -- they got permits from the building department as a tourist hotel. this is a residential hotel for 41 rooms and 16 rooms of tourist use, but it's a residential -- low income residential hotel. the first hearing there ever was on this building -- and i believe any residential hotel in the tenderloin -- was in november of last year, at hpc. the planning commission has not held hearings on residential hotels being converted because owners just do it. they do it, and their point permitted are not routed in the planning department, and when

the tenants have the opportunity to speak, they talk about the loss of housing in the tenderloin. mr. becor has owned this building since 1998. he has taken out financing and made ridiculously attempts to convert it to a tourist hotel legally. the planning department has not paid much attention to anything except the quality of the windows. it is not a window issue. this is -- the window issue is really, and that -- they should get the approval -- we -- done windows, but unless the planning commission says help, pay attention, we're losing housing. we are losing housing in the

tenderloin. i believe you should grant the d.r. thank you. >> all right. we'll open this up for public testimony in support of the d.r. >> good evening, commissioners. moses curette on behalf of supervisor jane kim's office tonight. the supervisor would like to speak about the concept of safe, clean -- >> just hold up. can we just shift everybody just to the other side of the room so we don't block that door as a fire exit. thank you. go ahead, moses. >> the preservation of safe, clean, affordable housing for our city's most vulnerable residents. these sro buildings provide the necessary baseline housing for many people, and their conversion is of great concern to the supervisors.

what we have at the bristol hotel is a situation where people have been out of their home for years. people have died. we have a situation where there's perhaps a desire to bring an sro up to market race, which would then make it unaffordable, and there's a possibility that capital improvements can be passed onto those residents that do succeed in returning back to their home. to the extent possible, the supervisor would like to see that the capital improvements be minimized for these people, and the planning commission find a way to monitor these residential rooms and ensure they come back on the market and not become illegally converted, and we would ask the property owner to publicly

state their intent to open up this building for the residents. thank you. >> all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners. my name is eric marcu. i'm a fourth generation native san franciscan. we really need your help here in preventing yet another reprehensible attempt to gen i gentrify the tenderloin. they did this to the point of being unlivable, and then waiting five years to rhenvate the building, making it impossible to obtain housing. the mission, the haight, and the western addition have

already been made essentially unaccessible to their former residents while using similar tactics. these sro's need to be continually accessible to low income residence den, not dollp for the so called hip techies, and think it would be cool to live in the city tofor a while with no regard to the citizens that are being placed out. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is victoria pinto, and i'm here to represent the glide foundation and our concern over what's happening at 56 mason. as you may be aware, glide is a cultural institution and multiservice center at the tenderloin, that serves thousands of its low income residents.

a great number of people we cecuming to glide are living in sro's as the only affordable housing available to them. this day, they face a great chance of homelessness. what is happening at the 56 mason represents something dangerous and disturbing. owners allowing sro's to go into disrepair to the point where low income rent controlled tenants are literally unable to continue living there. as you may know, owners then leave the rooms vacant fore years and leave them to be renovated at a more lucrative tenant base. this has been happening across the city so much. as a member of the market street for the masses coalition, we are writing to express this deep concern as it relates to the prom as 5 mason. we believe there are many possible policy fixes that help ensure that sro hotels remain

home for lower income san franciscans, and we are hoping that the city will collaborate with organizations on seeking those solutions that protect san franciscans from tax hikct such that have been used here. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is alexandra goldman. i'm the community organizing and planning manager at tenderloin neighborhood development cooperation. i'm also one of the cochairs for the market street tor the masses coalition, which is a group of organizations in the midmarket that's looking at the changes happening to the neighborhood. so i think what's really important here is to take a look at the context, and we're really asking for yu help in sort of trying to figure out what to do in the situation. in the past few years, sro housing has suddenly become appealing to higher income people. when i started working in the neighborhood which wasn't that long ago, we thought private

sro's were totally safe from gentrification, because if you could afford to live elsewhere, why would you live with a bathroom down the haul in a small room, but now with a combination of the housing crisis we're in and also a resurgeance of communal living as a cool lifestyle, sro's are seeing the same types of appreciate that we're seeing in other types of housing. we've seen a number of buildings in the tenderloin in various ways remove lower income rent controlled tenants, sometimes legally, sometimes questionably legally, and then rhenvate these sro's or apartment building and rent them to a higher income demographic. a lot of times, this is totally legal, and that's what's really challenging on this issue. and that's why we're here asking for your help, because sro was a form of affordable housing for a long time, and

it's not any longer. we're very concerned with projects like 56 mason, that this will become kind of a model and a beacon for other privately owned sro hotels. it'll be seen as totally feasible and totally acceptable to let your building deteriorate to the point it's unlivable and then rhenvate it and rent it out to higher income tenants. so thank you so much for your attention on this issue. >> all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for letting me talk to you today. my name it curtis bradford, and i'm a coshare of the tenderloin people's congress, the tenderloin community district board, market street for the masses, and a few other things. i'm here today to ask you to

support the d.r. it comes down to this. we have a problem. there's a real problem right now, and it's kind of under everybody's radar because these issues don't come before the planning commission generally. we don't have an opportunity to speak about what happens in a public forum which is why we're using this rare opportunity to bring up the subject. sro's are be converted, they're being converted at a very fast rate. i can name several that this has happened to already. the bristol is not the first, and it's not going to be the last, and unfortunately you don't see or hear about these, because these are done under the radar. i can name a couple of those. so the problem is real. i don't think there's an easy solution, but i'm using this opportunity to bring it to the public attention and to start the conversation. we need to do something, and we need to do something now. the bristol is a an example of

a really bad actor landlord. if you go and look at the records and the judgments against him in the instance of how he removed the tenants that were previously there, you'll see that i say that with -- with some confidence. so it's sets a really bad example. if we allow this to go unchecked, without any repercussion, then we're really setting a bad example and we've seen what happened in the mission. it's turned into a mess, and that's why you had to have that big debate earlier. the same thing is happening in the tenderloin. we have to get ahead of it now or we're going to end up in the -- if you think the homeless situation is bad now, i mean, these people -- when you lose the lowest income housing like this, and these are the lowest level, right?

when you lose these, where are people going to go? we don't have shelter beds? we don't have nowhere else for people to go. this is the area and neighborhood of last resort. what are we going to do when we lose this lowest running. there isn't another safety net, so please, we need your help. thank you. >> all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm laura, tenderloin people's congress. sro's are being converted to boutique hotels. we need to protect our sro's for low income residents. the tenderloin is the beforela to do this, because most other areas in the city have been gent gentrified.

we should not be particulkicki tenants for greedy owners. it's happening here, and we need protection. thank you. >> thank you. mr. robles? >> good evening, commissioners. tony robles, senior and disability action. what we need are policy fixes and tools that will remedy this situation because far too often, this behavior goes under the radar. somebody had mentioned the shelter situation, when you lose the lower -- lowest of the low income housing, you know, people are going to end up homeless. i think in the latest edition of street sheet, the waiting list for shelters numbered over 1,000. you know, sro's do provide much needed housing to seniors and people with disabilities. we cannot afford to lose those. we can't snent viez bad ak tine

landlords who do this. even low income housing is still housing, and we need the help of the planning department and planning commission to nip this in the bud. we are in a severe housing crisis, and lives are literally on the line. rhenvate, in an instance like this, is to speculate, and we've had enough housing for the wealthy here in san francisco. and thank you for your attention. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is jessie james johnson. i've lived -- for the past 25 years i've lived off and on for tenderloin hotels. you know, in the past, there was a stigma in living in one,

similar to the one that homeless experience today. they are rundown, they were gri grimy, and the people next door looked like they were wanted by the fbi, and you took a plunger with you to bathroom in case the toilet didn't work. nevertheless, we were living there because it was affordable. sro's in the tenderloin provided a safety net for people. they were a place for people coming into the city from a different country, people -- exiled from middle america could come and find a spot for a new beginning. they also provided people who needed a second chance, for whatever reason, you know, it provided them a space to -- to live and to close the door and to be able to come back up again. there are rumors that jan janis joplin lived at the

bristol hotel, and i believe that because it exemplifies the importance of that. they provide a vital part of the creativity that ferrments in the city. we can't lose our working class and low income population in the city. so i hope that you can find some solutions to this. thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? you have five minutes. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is alex burlein. i'm a partner at the living room of hanson and bridget.

it might be odd to have a lawyer up here talking about windows, but i think what we can tell from the d.r. requester and the public comment this has more to too with the history of the hotel and litigation than where we are now. neither me nor my firm was involved in the original capital improvement project but we have been involved with the last couple of years working with the city attorney and working with the civil cases. the first thing we have to keep in mind is we look at where were we originally? the building was old. it was built in 1908. its systems of plumbing, electrical after being built 100 years before were coming to the end of their useful life. when the buildings were being reconditioned, the folks had to move out for their own safety.

as the court has found, the move out process was not handled well. court made its findings. we're going to abide by them. we then move into the phase of the court's remedies to the owners, and i want to be very clear here. there's been talk that there's no repercussions here, scott free, getting away with it. to the contrary. we've worked with the city attorney to get the preliminary injunction in place. substantial fine was paid, seven figures. we've worked with plaintiff's lawyers. two separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and you'll see in the records and judge bradstreet's decision, $2.75 million was paid, so if mistakes were made, compensation was made. now, the next phase of providing compensation to these tenants, who admittedly have been out for a long time now, is to get them back in. and judge bradstreet, the same judge who wrote this decision,

which is not flattering of the project sponsor, conceded, says the remedy is complete the remodel, and she gave a hard deadline, and that's now been passed onto the next judge, and he has set april 30 as the date. furthermore, he's appointed a special master, kevin singer, to oversee the construction. kevin singer has a design and construction professional out there every two weeks to make sure the project is staffed, things are being done professionally, permits are being pulled appropriately. we are on schedule. the elevator is up and running. i included one of the special master's reports. he report does all drywall is installs and pointed. plumbing is in place. elevator will be ready in march and ready for a state inspection. so we're talking at this point about the exterior nonhistoric

storefronts that we've worked with staff months to iercron o and the windows on the upper floors. the d.r. requester is asking this body deny d.r. [ inaudible ] to continue to be regulated according to the law, so the d.r.'s request and staff recommendation are the same. we need to get these people back in. we are ready to send out the notices to reoccupy, but we can't do that until we've completed the project. this permit is the last piece, the exterior -- sorry. these are the exterior windows. this is the last step. we expect at least 14 people to be interested, maybe a bit less, to come back.

we're going to send notices to everybody, but even if everybody we expect to come back, opening on time, percourt order, would return 27 rooms to the market, san francisco has a housing crisis. it doesn't serve anybody's purpose. no one in this room gains by leaving this building fallow. during construction -- during construction, there was already an instance of vandenbealism. there was graffiti and spray paint. fortunately, it didn't push us back too hard, but to deny this building or push it back, this is going to leave the building fallow. a vote today is not for the project sponsor, it's for getting this building done and for allowing the court to get this project completed. thank you. >> all right. thank you. is there any public testimony in support of the project?

mr. david. >> hi. todd david on behalf of the san francisco beneficial housing coalition. i can't say i'm an expert on this issue or this specific project, but from my understanding, people have spoken, too, that there are 14 people who want to return to their homes in this building, and that then, there would be an additional 27 units available up to the market for sro to help below market by design, and all of the remedies that former -- that the former residents have are still there. there still is things going on in the court system, so i'm having a hard time understanding how it benefits

anybody to not be able to have people move back into this building. i'm just -- perhaps i am missing something, but it seems that there are people who used to be residents who want to come back, that there are court cases going on that will continue to go on, whether people move back or not. moving back isn't stopping the court cases, so i'm just -- i mean, i'm certainly open to hear why it would be good to leave buildings falow low in a housing crisis. perhaps there is policy stuff that we as a city need to do around sro's. that's a totally different issue than this. so any way. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. miss hester, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

>> for the first time, we hear that there are 14 people left to reoccupy the building. this is a prescription for how developers can manipulate the process. if they had all the permits in hand that the code requires at the time they asked the tenants to vacate for their work, they would have it tenants back in there 5.5 years ago. so the owner takes the benefit of complying with the law, not having anyone scrutinize permits for tourist hotels at all, and they get windfalls. how much is the owner planning on renting these units for the

other 27? so if there are 14 people ready to come back, that is 14 people, that's great. but in the broader scheme of things, we need two things. one is a planning commission needs to require a permanently on this hotel for all intenses and purposes, all needs to be routed to the planning department, not over the counter dbi for planning access. they should be scrutinized by someone whose total job is housing in the planning department, knowing how housing works. not having a conflict by also getting the permit through for the project. the other thing that needs to be done is the work that is reviewed at the end of a permit of occupancy needs to be inspected by a planning

department. the planning department needs to document how much this hotel has been upgraded by the renovations. they haven't reviewed. >> thank you, miss hester. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> it's been a rather long evening, so if the commissioners have any questions, i'd prefer spending our time with that. >> okay. we may. you can -- you can have a seat. commissioner moore? >> there are two issues. one is the restoration of the windows under lying, though, i think is a much more difficult thing to think about, and i don't think we can separate the two. i think the request for sro's falling under more scrutiny was in the planning department was i think very reasonable and i think long overdue request. we have never ever been more

between a rock and a hard place than right now. and if, indeed, out of the previous number of tenants, there are only 14 left, that should kind of put us a little bit on notice that this, i think, is extremely important and urgent to do. what we can do relative to that only 14 can come back, although there were originally more rooms for them is an issue i'd love to ask the city attorney about, but unfortunately, he's not here. the second thing i'd like to know is what type of guarantees do we have, what type of quality control and kind of monitoring do we have that those people who are allowed to come back are, indeed, moving in, are being properly treated and based on supervisor kim's recommendation to us that there is not too much path of capital

improvements to their rent because they would immediately find themselves again without a home. we all know in the many years this building has been vacant, the increase in one capital improvement cost has gone through the roof. we all know that. commissioner richards talks about that quite frequently, but we all know in terms of the overall value and increasing permit cost, it isn't the same anymore had this been done pretty expediently when the tenants were evicted. so i'm confused what to do being that we as a planning commission do not have the ability to create a new set of category by which privately owned sro hotels cannot indeed intentionally neglect themselves out of the business that they're in; that we indeed protections that we have clear parameters or metrics which we

can say yes or no, which we don't have today. we're taking a complicated case at face value. i would like to add much stricter conditions relative to who moves in, but that is not what we're allowed to do or asked to do. we're basically simply asked to talk about the windows, and i'm very happy to see the windows being restored, and that's historic preservation that's supporting it, and that makes it most likely a really much better building, but the underlying issue is something we cannot create conditions unless we specifically put something in the approval by which that takes on separate language attached to this d.r., and that is what i'm prepared to do. except i'm struggling exactly how to say it, and i would very much like the city attorney to be here to help me with that. i like it to be of such that

it's supportive of everything that's legally going on, but also something that which it has stick. >> has... >> stick. >> stick? >> stick. >> sting is a -- well, i'm not in the sting business, unfortunately. >> unfortunately, the city attorney has left, so we're going to look for guidance from the city attorney, we're not going to get it this evening. >> well, we need to basically make an intent of a condition which where the city attorney has to review and help us with at another moment. i would be more comfortable with that because i think we're putting something here on the gold scale, and that's why i think i would like it to be precise and accurate, and i do not have the expertise to do that. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. i just want to flag that i hear from some community members because they feel like this is their rare opportunity to come before this commission about a larger issue that's happening

around the sro's, and i would like to see us give our community tools that are not having to be here in this situation. so i'm just wondering whether or not the planning department or we can work together with the planning department to just take a step back and think more deeply about these issues and also, is it seems like get more information out to the community about what's happening around sro's. >> yeah. commissioner koppel. >> yeah, very unfortunate to hear the testimony we're hearing tonight. we're familiar with hearing the crossover issues with dbi with planning, and they still continue to rear their heads. but at the same time, i don't know how many different choices we have and how we can actually act tonight. you said fines were assessed and heavy fines were paid, and, i mean, to -- my goal in what

i'm about to say is to get these people back into their rooms. and so if i understand correctly, they can't go back until the windows are replaced, correct? just simple yes or no. >> the code says, upon completion, we must send out our notices of reoccupancy, and arguably, even though these are exterior window dos, it's part the completion process. it probably tries some sort of work around, but it doesn't benefit either returning tenants or the owners to have construction project going on while they're trying to enjoy their new rooms. >> okay. thanks. just seeing as the windows replacement is still missing, and they can't move back until then, i'm looking at this as let's replace the windows, so i'm going to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner richards? >> that might have been a little premature, to be honest, with you, commissioner.

i wanted to say that, you know, in today's examiner, tenderloin tenants call for outfit of real estate developer from rent board. they claim that they're public health hazards, the tenant had to actually make -- do a mold test on her own to provide abatement, and according to the article -- and i don't -- her name was vaughn. she was told she shouldn't be pushing the issue. she had paid out of her pocket for mold intrusion in her unit. this is indicative of i think what's happening all over the city. the issue we can relate into this project is mr. masser apparently found a loophole in the rent control pass through ordinance on 285 turk, where if

he paid 70% of what he bought the building for in improvements, ecopahe could pa all the costs to the tenant, way, way, way above the 2 prs allowed by law. and some people got rent increases as high as 70%, so i look at this, and i know it's about windows, and i completely agree with you. we've got to put these windows back in, but the conditions need to be, these people need to return. i'd love to see a list of who they are, but they've got to return at their old rent. they have to be able to return and live there, so the upside from the other 27 rooms is going to be you're going to get market rate rent. apparently one of the rooms in mr. masser's building goes for

$2900, which is incredible for an sro, i would ask the maker of the motion to amend it such -- could we see the list of the people that's supposed to return, and why is it only 14? why is it not 41? let's do the math here. >> the original licensing for the building as i think was mentioned and was in the record is 16 units -- tourist units and 41 residential. as people left, the landlord simply stopped replacing them, so by the time notices of relocations went out, we were down to 20 rooms still occupied, and those are the ones notices were given.

what we are willing to do, and we appreciate the public comment. we have great respect for sue hester and her long history with the city, my clients are willing not to do any capital improvement pass through at all for the returning. >> so they'd be offered their original rent. >> they'd be offered their original rent. >> could we see the list. >> i don't have a list of the original tenants with me. >> mr. gladstone. >> so just to clarify, there are 18 tenants, you said, two occupied before the building was taken offline? in october of 2012, when the notice of relocation went out, there were a total of 20 as folks had mentioned, unfortunately, two of those had passed away, so there are 18, and we have reasonable to believe about 14 intend on

returning, but we're going to give all 18. >> so could you do it on the overhead? >> oh, sure. it looks like it's on your phone. you can expand it. >> rick gladstone. i haven't been involved in this until very recently, but i did obtain this. these names in yellow which indicates tenants who have stated on record and writing they want to return now. blue is tenants who no longer want to return, and they've stated that. at the very bottom of this are two tenants, mccouldy and nicholson have passed. one of the tenants is currently living in sacramento. we don't have any recent information on the others who are not shown in yellow or in

blue, but those people not shown in yellow or blue will be sent notices to reoccupy. apparently one of the peoples whose name is in -- whose name is benetta boise currently lives in utah. one of the people on the list, a james turner, we found lives in georgia. >> got it. so are any of these people not reachable because they're homeless? i mean, what i want to make sure, we'd be glad to accept your voluntary offer of returning on the rent, but i want to make sure these people get served their notice that they can return, so there's no it went to a general post office box, but they're homeless, and whatever. i'd like to have a report back to this commission once the building is complete on april

30th, and the people have moved back in, and we can take the list, which i have here, as well, and we can go down the list and say, who's moved back in, and are the rents okay, and i think people in the community can actually contact these folks and make sure of the rent. and thank you for that offer. i'd like to amend that the motion include that. >> i think you'd have to amend the motion to take d.r. >> take d.r. and amend the motion with the voluntary condition that the project sponsor had agreed to. >> i'll accept that. >> thank you. >> second. >> great. the other thing i'd like to say is i know this commission asked the department to have a housing person or a -- i forget what we called it in the budget. that, i think, would be the right kind of person to handle these kind of issues. additionally, as i'm thinking along you'll these different things that we've had today, somebody who knows building code to be able to start all these issues that commissioner moore is able to ferret out because we don't have a lot of

this expertise, but thank you, commissioners. thank you for agreeing to the amendment. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you. i think that's the right action today. however, i think there's a bigger problem in question, and i want to be supportive and totally understand those who are speaking to protect our units and protect buildings. i think we all know there are a number of buildings in the city that are 50% vacant sort of waiting for this opportunity. the other reality, these are very old buildings, and they need a lot of work. and to maybe help subsidize a lot of the tenants to maybe help them remain in the building, but that's just pure economics. i'd like to suggest to the president that we add this to the four items that to take a look at the true losses, what the vacancy is. i think we're going to be a little surprised to find out that the buildings are up and

operating but only at 30% or 20%, and that's where the real loss is today, but i'd be interested to take a look at something going forward where there's a policy that allows these buildings to retrofit on safety and seismic code, but we remain some of the rents for those tenants who are at the last tier of housing in san francisco. >> great. we will do that. there's two issues that folks have raised, and one, i appreciate, miss hester, you bringing this to our attention, and others who have come to testify. i think i toured this building at one point when we had another kind of conversion of sro's that they were attempting to convert them into tourist buildings. i think it was rundown and vacant. if it's not this one, there's others like this one, and i agree with commissioner fong

and commissioner johnson who talked about bringing up broader issues about sro's. they're all units that we think about affordable, but there isn't necessarily protections that can keep them affordable. there's improvements that can be done to bring them up into more market race units. i think it's good to have a hearing on that, and also, the broader issue about rhenvating buildings and tenants leaving and kind of what their rights are. it seemed like this went on a long time and precluded some of the existing tenants for coming back. we'll calendar a hearing and work with staff to make that a productive hearing. miss hester, i just wanted to get your take on the motion that we have before us. is this kind of what you were looking for on this? i mean, it seems like there's not a ton else we can do. i think it's good that -- i would just ask, too, that we

amend that motion or just get a report back in three months or so. i don't know when you expect the building to be reoccupied, but it would be either to get a report back from staff that would tell us kind of the status, and it would be interesting to know that the units that are -- that are currently vacant that will come on the market, what they're renting at, and just get some additional information on how this building got reoccupied and reused. miss hester? >> i don't see why you can't impose a condition that says all further permits for this building shall be routed to the planning department for review, not over the counter issuance by dbi. dbi doesn't do such a good job on residential hotels, and they didn't do a good job on this building. no one knows at the planning department what is happening on residential hotels because they

don't ever see the darn permits. and i sthink you have jurisdiction over this building at this hearing to require all future permits for the building to be routed to the planning department for review and not by historical preservation only. i believe that is an important thing. and i believe that communication with the person from dbi who deals with residential housing to -- and a person from planning department to go on all these inspections that she goes through would be part of the educational process for the planning department on this building. >> right. okay. thank you. maybe we'll learn more about kind of planning's role in that -- in kind of the process. i don't know if that's --

that's feasible, at least the first thing about for a time certain getting permits routed to planning. >> sure. i can speak generally with the planning at the present time, we could enter a condition in our system to note that permits need to be reviewed accurately by the planning department staff. we can work with dbi to see about some kind of condition, but i couldn't speak on behalf of dbi at this time about routing all permits to planning. it's something we could investigate? also, that may be a discussion for an up coming joint hearing with dbi about that topic? so we can definitely investigate the routing of all dbi permits, but i cannot speak with 100% confidence on that routing. as you know, dbi routes permits to planning, and then we review them. we don't have jurisdiction on what permits actually do get routed to us just generally. >> okay. commissioner richards?

>> i forgot what i was going to say, i was listening to you so intently. what would we do with the permits if they came to us? miss hester, what would we do? >> to the planning department. not to us. >> but over the counter, miss hester, they come in, what do you think they should do? >> part of it is figuring out how much of the scaling is going on. for this permit, probably not for this permit, but for this building. they add in the residential hotel, a karaoke lounge with all kinds of karaoke in the basement. that's not a normal residential hotel amenity. it's a tourist hotel amenity, quite frankly, so how much upscale planning is being done? the planning department should know how much. >> i think that's something we

should talk with dbi about. >> if we could just add that back to the motio-- report bac motion. >> upon occupancy? >> yeah. >> upon occupancy. >> is that all right, commissioner koppel? >> very good. shall i call that question? >> please. >> so commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and approve the project, recognizing and conditioning the voluntary offer for rent rates for those reoccupying and a required report back update upon occupancy. >> and it was the -- my amendment was to have the individuals on the list served, not just send them mail. is that okay with you, commissioner koppel? >> mr. ionin, when you say when