hotel and sam patel. i want to start because i know our paper has very much responded to the concerns that the d.r. requesters and the neighbors have raised. i want to make very clear at the outset that we proposed the conditions that the d.r. requester has included in his packet. at least mr. solas packet. he added another page of conditions but we were willing to engage in all the conditions we provided to you in our papers and we had worked on those at a larger building and smaller building where we came up with them. there was always an understanding the possibility that the city may not be able to enforce them. and appreciate the limitation on the zoning administrator. the had offered that we can file this but we can still talk and include the whole host of conditions. we never heard back and we left it at that. we agreed that you take dr and continue with the conditions that have been recommended by staff. there are concerns in respect to security. there are many redun
points out that the s.r.o. group housing is permitted while a tourist hotel is not permitted. so it will bring the subject more into conformity with the planning code. additionally, s.r.o. s are supported and encouraged in the area plan. the first d.r. requester and project sponsor have worked to provide conditions of approval to address the operational issues. the department reviewed those conditions and determined which ones that both fell under the purview of the department and were enforceable by the department. those conditions are provided as attachment a in your packet. the project sponsor feels these proposed conditions of approval are reasonable solutions to this issue. and support the planning commission taking d.r. and approving the project subject to those conditions. this project was not reviewed by the residential design team because it did not fall within a residential zoning district and additionally the d.r. requester s concerns did not include external desig