WJ SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1650 Mission St Letter of Determination Suite 400

September 14, 2011

Robert H. Gebaide of Baker & Hostetler LLP

SunTrust Center, Suite 2300

200 South Orange Avenue

Orlando, FL 32801-3432

Site Address: Assessor’s Block/Lot: Zoning District: Staff Contact:

Dear Mr. Gebaide:

San Francisco, CA 94103-2479

Reception: 415.558.6378

Fax: 415.558.6409

Planning Information: 415.558.6377

1075 California Street

0254/024

RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) Zoning District Aaron Hollister, (415) 575-9078 or aaron.hollister@sfgov.org

This letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Determination regarding the property at 1075

California Street. This parcel is located in the RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) Zoning District,

the Nob Hill Special Use District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. You have requested information

regarding the establishment of a time-share occupancy at an existing Tourist Hotel Use known as the Huntington Hotel located at 1075 California Street.

The Planning Code does not regulate the establishment of time-share ownership in the City and County

of San Francisco; therefore, I am not able to address your inquiry regarding the establishment of time-

share ownership at the subject property. Please be aware that any requests relating to interpretations of

Administrative Code Sections 41-C and 41-F should be addressed to the Office of the City Attorney. Please find the requested Conditional Use Authorizations for the subject property attached to this letter.

APPEAL: If you believe this determination represents an error in interpretation of the Planning Code or

abuse in discretion by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the date of this letter. For information regarding the appeals process, please contact the

Board of Appeals located at 1650 Mission Street, Room 304, San Francisco, or call (415) 575-6880.

Sincerely,

Scott F. Sanchez

Zoning Administrator

Enclosures(2)

cc: Nob Hill Properties Inc., 1075 California Street, SF, CA 94108

wwwsfpanningorg

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. 6837

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission on May 4, 1972, heard Con-ditional Use Application No. CU72.12 under Sections 303 and 238 of the City Planning Code for authorization of a HOTEL RESTAURANT in an R-5 district in the Nob Hill Special Use District on property described as follows:

1075 California Street, Huntington Hotel at the southeast corner at the intersec- tion with Taylor Street; Lot 24 in Asses- sor’s Block 254; and

WHEREAS, The proposed restaurant, is in conformity with provisions of the Nob Hill Special Use District which permits such a use if designed primarily for occupants and visitors to the hotel, accessible to the general public only from within the building, and not identified outside the building by means of any sign or signs; and

WHEREAS, The alterations to the building would have no detrimental effects on the nature of the site and structure; and

WHEREAS, There is off-street parking immediately adjacent to the subject property to serve any hotel visitors who wish to use the proposed restaurant; and

WHEREAS, The proposed restaurant would provide a necessary and desirable service to the hotel occupants and visitors by providing moderately-priced service at all meals and during the evening;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the City Planning Commission finds that the criteria set forth in Sections 303(c) and 238(c) of the City Planning Code are met and said Conditional Use is hereby authorized in accordance with standards specified in the City Planning Code and subject to further conditions as follows:

1. The building exterior may be altered in such a manner as to provide a second entrance to the hotel.

2. No signs may be placed on the subject property to indicate the presence of the proposed restaurant.

3. Prior to filing for any building permits, final plans shall be submitted to the Department of City Planning for review and approval.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution .as ADOPTED by the City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 4, 1972.

Lynn E. Pio Secretary

AYES: Commissioners Firm, Mellon, Newman, Porter, Ritchie NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Fleishhacker, Rueda PASSED: May 4, 1972

// I

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

MOTION NO. 15007

ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. 1999.866C BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A FITNESS CENTER I SPA FACILITY WITHIN THE NOB HILL SPECIAL USE DISTRICT, AN RM-4 (MIXED RESIDENTIAL, HIGH-DENSITY) DISTRICT, AND A 65-A HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT.

Preamble

On March 2, 2000, the Planning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Application No. 1999.866C at which time the Commission reviewed and discussed the findings prepared for its review by the staff of the Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "Department").

It was determined by the Department, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA"), and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review, Class 1(a), [Section 15301(a) of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA]. The Commission concurs with this determination.

This Commission has reviewed and considered reports, studies, plans and other documents pertaining to this proposed Project.

This Commission has heard and considered the testimony presented to it at the public hearing and has further considered the written materials and oral testimony presented on behalf of the applicant, the Department Staff and other interested parties.

MOVED, That the Commission hereby authorizes the Conditional Use requested in Application No. 1999.866C subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto, based on the following findings:

Findings

Having reviewed all the materials identified in the recitals above, and having heard oral testimony and arguments, this Commission finds, concludes and determines as follows:

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 2

1. The statements in the preamble are accurate and also constitute findings of this Commission.

2. On December 15, 1999, Donald Cremers of Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Moris Architects ("SMWM") (hereinafter "Applicant"), authorized agent of Nob Hill Properties, Inc., owner, filed Application No. 1999.866C (hereinafter "Application") requesting authorization of a Conditional Use for a fitness center/health spa in the Huntington Hotel, within the Nob Hill Special Use District (hereinafter "NH-SUD") (hereinafter "Project"), at 1075 California Street, southeast corner at Taylor Street, Lot 24 in Assessor’s Block 254 (hereinafter "Subject Property"), in an RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High-Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

3. The site is a 50-vara lot consisting of a total of 18,906.25 square feet. This parcel has 137.5-foot frontages along both California and Taylor Streets. It is developed witfta 12-story, 143,673-square-foot hotel building known as the Huntington Hotel. The structure was constructed in 1924 as an apartment building and later converted to a hotel (in the 1940’s) at which time a ballroom was added on the level below the street. Later in time, that ballroom (which space is the portion of the building presently proposed for use as a spa and health club facility) was converted to a bar and restaurant (known as "L’EtoiIe") with space for approximately 175 patrons. That establishment closed approximately eight years ago and the space it occupied has been vacant since then. Additionally, until recently, the next-door apartment building (which is in common ownership with the Huntington Hotel) depended on mechanical systems in the subject building. Those systems have been modernized and the two buildings now have individual mechanical systems. The space in the subject building formerly devoted to serving the neighboring structure has been freed-up and is now part of the space to be occupied by the proposed project.

4. The Project would include an extensive remodel of the floor below the ground floor of the subject building to create a fitness center/spa facility for the use of hotel guests. This facility would feature a small swimming pool, a work-out room, shower-and-locker areas with sauna and steam rooms, a whirlpool spa, ten treatment rooms for massage, manicure/pedicure, etc., and space for storage and facility management. This facility would have a reception area on the lobby (street) level of the hotel and its primary entrance would be from the hotel lobby. However, there would be a handicapped-accessible entry, to be shared by the hotel lobby (which is not now accessible) and the health club, entered through a door on California Street (east of the main entrance to the hotel) that was, formerly, the entrance door to "L’Etoile". As proposed, the new health club facility could accommodate approximately 30 people.

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.8660 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 3

5. The Subject Property is at the crest of Nob Hill which area is within an RM-4 District. Across California Street to the north (from west to. east) are Grace Cathedral, Huntington Park and the Pacific Union Club (occupying the old Flood mansion). To the west is the Masonic Auditorium. Other nearby uses include high-density apartment buildings and hotels, namely the Fairmont and Mark Hopkins.

6. Section 206.2 of the Planning Code (hereinafter "Code") establishes descriptions of "RM" (Residential, Mixed) Districts. These districts are intended to recognize, protect, conserve and enhance areas characterized by a mixture of houses and apartment buildings, covering a range of densities and building forms according to the individual district designations. Despite the range of densities and building sizes, most structures are of a scale that respects the traditional lot patterns, open spaces and articulation of facades typical of San Francisco neighborhoods. These districts provide unit sizes and types suitable for a variety of households, and contain supporting nonresidential uses. The RM Districts are composed of four separate classes of districts, as follows:

RM-4 Districts: High Density. These districts are devoted almost exclusively to apartment buildings of high density, usually with smaller units, close to downtown. Buildings over 40 feet in height are very common, and other tall buildings may be accommodated in some instances. Despite the intensity of development, distinct building styles and moderation of facades are still to be sought in new development, as are open areas for the residents. Group housing is especially common in these districts, as well as supporting nonresidential uses.

7. Code Section 151 contains the schedule of required off-street parking spaces. In conjunction with a restaurant, bar or dance hall (ballroom), the Code requires one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of occupied floor area. In conjunction with a health club, spa or fitness center (gymnasium), it also requires (by prior interpretation of the Zoning Administrator) one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of occupied floor area. Accordingly, no net-new off-street parking would be required by the Project proposal.

8. Section 238 of the Code establishes the Nob Hill Special Use District. It states that "(i)n order to provide for an established area with a unique combination of uses and a special identity, there shall be a Nob Hill Special Use District" (hereinafter "NH-SUD") as designated on Sectional Map No. 1 SU of the Zoning Map. The following provisions apply within this special use district:

(a) A hotel, inn or hostel, as described in Section 209.2(e) of the Code, may be permitted. by the City Plang Commission as a conditional use under

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 4

Section 303 of the Code. (b) In connection with any permitted principal or conditional use located in such

special use district, incidental commercial uses may be permitted by the City Planning Commission as a Conditional Use under Section 303 of the Code, if designed primarily for occupants of and visitors to the use to which they are incidental, accessible to the general public only from within the building, and not identified outside the building by means of any sign or signs.

(c) A private lodge, private clubhouse, private recreational facility or community facility other than as specified in Planning Code Subsection 209.4(a), and which is not operated as a gainful (for-profit) business may be permitted by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use under Section 303 of the Code.

(d) Eating and drinking uses as defined in Section 790.34 of the Code, with the exception of large fast-food restaurants as defined in Section 790.90 of the Code, may be permitted by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use under Code Section 303. The limitations on design, accessibility and identification set forth in Subsection (b) above shall not apply to such uses hereby permitted.

(e) Signage for principal permitted uses or for eating and drinking uses within the NH-SUD is be limited as per Planning Code Section 606 with the exception that projecting signs in the form of sign copy on canopies and awnings are be permitted for eating and drinking uses in lieu of wall signs unless otherwise limited as a condition of approval of a Conditional Use authorization.

(f) The various uses provided for in Subsections 238(a) through 238(e) above are not permitted in any portion of a building which is devoted to a dwelling unit or to group housing as defined in Section 209.2(a) of the Code.

(g) Awnings, canopies and marquees, as regulated in Section 136.3 of the Code, are be permitted in the NH-SUD. (Amended by Ord. 443-78, App. 10/6/78; Ord. 329-91, App. 9/11/91)

The Project would comply with the standards of Code Section 238. The hotel on the Subject Property is an automatic Conditional Use without conditions (due to the fact that it was already in existence before the adoption of the legislation creating the NH-SUD [in 1978]). The Project would be entered from within the hotel building (with the exception of an existing entrance from the street that would become a handicapped-accessible entrance used both by the hotel lobby and the proposed health club/spa facility). The Project is designed for and proposed to be primarily an accessory use to the hotel itself. Signage will be made to comply with Code standards for same

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 5

9. Code Section 204 establishes the concept of "Accessory Uses"and defines them as related minor uses which are either necessary to the operation or enjoyment of a lawful Principal Use or Conditional Use, or appropriate, incidental and subordinate to any such use.

Section 204.2 thereunder establishes standards for "Accessory Uses for Uses Other than Dwellings in ’R’ Districts". Accordingly, no use is permitted as an accessory use to a use other than a dwelling in any "R" District which involves or requires any of the following:

(a) The use of more than one quarter of the total floor area occupied by such use and the principal or conditional use to which it is accessory, except in the case of accessory off-street parking and loading;

(b) The use of show windows or window displays or advertising to attract customers or clients, except for an identifying sign and regulated in Article 6 of the Code; or

(c) The conduct of any activity of a profitmaking or commercial nature, except as an integral part of the permitted Principal or Conditional Use where such activity is expressly permitted by Sections 209.1 through 209.9 of the Code.

The proposed health club/spa facility would occupy less than one floor of a structure with 13 levels. It would be incidental to the operation of the hotel in which it is to be situated and would be commercial in nature insofar as the hotel itself is a commercial venture.

10. Under the provisions of Code Section 303, the Commission may authorize a Conditional Use only after holding a duly noticed public hearing and making findings that the proposed use will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community, that such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property, improvements or potential development in the vicinity and that such use will comply with the applicable provisions of the Code, and will not adversely affect the General Plan.

11. The proposed Project complies with the criteria of Section 303(c) of the Code in that:

A. The development of a health club/spa facility to serve hotel guest is desirable in that it enhances the quality and character of one of San Francisco’s first-class hostelries; one which lends character to the NH-SUD.

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 6

B. The Project is designed to be accessory to the hotel in which it would be situated. Therefore, traffic and parking demand would not be increased over that which is already generated by the hotel as Project patrons would be primarily hotel guests. In addition, the site is served by the California Street cable car line. The Project would meet the parking requirements of Section 151.

C. This Project does not propose any uses likely to generate offensive emissions, such as noise, glare, dust, or odor. The Project would be entirety within an existing building.

D. The Project would not adversely affect and it would affirmatively promote applicable objectives and provisions of the General Plan in that:

(1) Residence Element: The Project would be consistent with Objective 6, Policy 1 in that it would enhance the existing hotel use on the Subject Property keeping it apace with other establishments of its kind and continuing its contributory presence in the NH-SUD with its unique mix of residential, hotel and institutional uses.

(2) Urban Design Element: The Project would involves a building which is significant to the City’s visual form and character as evidenced by its inclusion in the NH-SUD. Although there would be no exterior changes to this structure as part of the Project, the proposed health club/spa facility would improve the service offered by the subject hotel thereby promoting its preservation and competitiveness in the marketplace. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Objective 2, Policies 4 and 7.

12. Code Section 101.1(b)(1-8) establishes Eight Priority Planning Policies and requires review of permits for consistency with said policies. On balance, the Project complies with said policies in that:

A. The Project would not remove or otherwise negatively impact any existing neighborhood-serving retail uses. The Project would add new a new service available to the guests of the subject hotel and, therewith, potential new employment opportunities for San Franciscans.

B. The Project would conserve and enhance a building which is contributory to the special character of the NH-SUD, and would offer economic opportunity in the form of potential new jobs in the health and fitness

PLANNING COMMISSION

Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007 Page 7

industries.

C. The Project would have no effect on the City’s supply of affordable housing in that it is non-residential in nature.

D. No additional traffic would be generated by the Project in that the Project is essentially accessory to the existing hotel use on the Subject Property. Therefore, the Project would not result in impediments to MUNI transit service or local streets or neighborhood parking. The Project site is on the California Street cable car line.

E. The Project would not remove any industrial or service uses, as no such uses are operating on the site. The Project would generate employment opportunities available to a diverse socio-economic range of City residents.

F. The Project would be constructed according to current local, State and Federal codes in order to insure the highest level of safety in the advent of an earthquake.

G. The existing structure is not a designated Landmark nor is it within any designated Historic Districts. However, it is within the NH-SLID and it is contributory to the special character of that District. In that the Project would enhance the subject hotel operation in that building, it would help to preserve this important building.

H. The Project would be entirely within an existing building. Therefore, it not impact public parks, open space, or vistas.

In summary, the Project is consistent with and would promote the general and specific purposes of the Code provided under Section 101.1(b) in that, as designed, it would contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood.

13. The Commission, after carefully balancing the competing public and private interests, hereby finds that authorization of the Conditional Use authorization would promote the health, safety and welfare of the City.

DECISION

That based upon the Record, the submissions by the Applicant, the staff of the Department and other interested parties, the oral testimony presented to this Commission at the public hearing, and all other written materials submitted by all parties, the

Commission hereby Approves Conditional Use Application No. 1999.866C subject to the following conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was ADOPTED by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2000.

Linda Avery Commission Secretary

AYES: Commissioners Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Martin and Richardson

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ADOPTED: March 2, 2000

LJM:ljm\g:’wp51\1 O75cali.mot

PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 1999.866C 1075 California Street Motion No. 15007

EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The authorization herein is for the addition of a health club/spa facility to an existing hotel within the Nob Hill Special Use District, in general conformity with plans on file with the Application and labeled Exhibit B. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff of the Department prior to the issuance of the building permit.

2. Construction of the herein-authorized Project shall commence within three years of the date of this action and shall be, thenceforth, pursued diligently to completion or said authorization shall become null and void.

3. Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the Police Code). Section 2908 of the Ordinance prohibits construction work between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM, if noise would exceed the ambient noise level by five dBA at the project property line, unless a special permit is authorized by the Director of Public Works. The project demolition and construction operations shall comply with the Noise Ordinance, San Francisco Police Code Section 2909, Fixed Source Levels, which regulates mechanical equipment noise.

4. The Applicant shall appoint a person or persons to act as a neighborhood liaison. The function of said liaison shall be to consult with residents of the Project and neighbors in the surrounding neighborhood to resolve problems or complaints arising from operation, of the Project. The Applicant shall report the name and telephone number of said community liaison to the Zoning Administrator for reference.

5. Should implementation of this Project result in complaints from interested property owners, residents or commercial lessees, which complaints are not resolved by the Applicant, (and/or the appointed community liaison for the Project), and are subsequently reported to the Zoning Administrator and found to be in violation of the Code and/or the specific conditions of approval for the Project as set forth in this Exhibit A, pursuant to Section 174 of the Code, the Zoning Administrator shall take appropriate violation abatement action and the Commission, after holding a public hearing on the matter in accordance with the hearing notification and conduct procedures as set forth is sections 174, pursuant to Section 306.3 and 306.4 of the Code, may revoke the subject Conditional Use authorization.

LJM:ljm:g:\wp5l\calil 075-mot

Baker Hostetler If) A]& itf L

Ck: 4214/61 �77 Baker&Hostetler LLP

June 20, 2011

SunTrust Center, Suite 2300 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801-3432

T 407.649.4000 F 407.841.0168 www.Oakerlaw.com

San Francisco Planning Department Office of the Zoning Administrator CITY& COUN \( oberH 1 G:;I6d:94059

1650 Mission Street, Suite #400 LANNiNL Di PAR LTMEN1 RGebaide@bakerlaw.com

San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: Request for Letter of Determination; 1075 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94108 (.4/c)

To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this letter as a request for a letter of determination regarding the Huntington Hotel, located at 1075 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94108 (the "Property"). The Property is located within the Nob Hill Special District and consists of approximately 136 guest rooms and suites, together with restaurant, spa, and other uses ancillary to the existing hotel.

The questions posed in this letter were previously asked of the Public Information Center by email on June 15, 2011; however, the PlC advised that such questions should be addressed to the Office of the Zoning Administrator by way of a written request for a letter of determination accompanied by a fee of $577.00. Accordingly, a check in the amount of $577.00 made payable to the San Francisco Planning Department is enclosed with this request.

Our client is in the timeshare business and has asked us to confirm the manner in which the City applies its codes to timeshare uses. For purposes of this letter, our client has advised, and you may properly assume that (i) under any proposed timeshare plan all hotel rooms proposed to be converted to timeshare use would remain available for rent to the general public when an owner of the timeshare interest was not in occupancy; (ii) the contemplated conversion to timeshare would provide for use on a nightly reservations basis (not exclusively on a weekly basis); and (iii) virtually all hotel services (and the employees who provide those services) would continue, as before the conversion. We greatly appreciate your attention to the following questions and requests:

(1) Is the conversion of a hotel to timeshare ownership or use generally considered by the City to be a conversion that is subject to the provisions of Chapter 41-F of the City of San Francisco Administrative Code ("Chapter 41-F")? In this regard, we note that timeshare use is not addressed in the Chapter, and is separately regulated from condominiums and other subdivisions by the State of California. We also note that, as

Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Washington, DC

San Francisco Planning Department June 20, 2011 Page 2

indicated above, (i) the hotel rooms proposed to be converted to timeshare use would remain available for rent to the general public when an owner of the timeshare interest was not in occupancy; (ii) the contemplated conversion to timeshare would provide for use on a nightly reservations basis (not exclusively on a weekly basis); and (iii) virtually all hotel services (and the employees who provide those services) would continue, as before the conversion.

(2) If the answer to question number 1 is "yes," would Chapter 41-F still apply if the timeshare plan is structured so that there is no conveyance of ownership in the hotel property to the purchaser (but is merely a contractual right of the timeshare customer to use the hotel room and ancillary facilities pursuant to a reservation system)? As noted above, (i) the hotel rooms proposed to be converted to timeshare use would remain available for rent to the general public when an owner of the timeshare interest was not in occupancy; (ii) the contemplated conversion to timeshare would provide for use on a nightly reservations basis (not exclusively on a weekly basis); and (iii) virtually all hotel services (and the employees who provide those services) would continue, as before the conversion.

(3) Please advise as to (i) the number of lottery credits approved to date under Chapter 41-F and (ii) the number of credits that are presently available for applicants that may seek conversions under Chapter 41-F?

(4) Would the conversion of all or a portion of the Property to timeshare use be a permitted use of the Property, or would such conversion require further City approval/conditional use (assuming all matters under Chapter 41-F are addressed if applicable)? We note that Section 238 of the code provides that in the Nob Hill Section, a hotel, inn or hostel as specified in Subsection 209.2(d) of the Code may be permitted by the Planning Commission as a conditional use. Section 209.2(d) effectively provides that a hotel, inn, or hotel with six or more guestrooms or suites, none with individual cooking facilities, which are offered for compensation and are primarily for the accommodation of transient overnight guests, may be permitted as a conditional use.

(5) If City approval of the timeshare conversion of the Property would be required, please advise us as to the City’s process for permitting and approving such conversion.

(6) Please provide us with a copy of any conditional use approval for the Property.

(7) Please confirm that the conversion of a hotel property (such as the Property) to a timeshare use would be outside of the parameters of Chapter 41-C of the City of San Francisco Administrative Code, which I understand only restricts conversion of residential units.

San Francisco Planning Department June 20, 2011 Page 3

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this letter. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance as you prepare your response.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Gebaide

Enclosure

103847451.1