lobby on the ground floor, and a new stair penthouse and roof deck. the project is not intended to provide transitional or subsidized low income housing. as provided under the residential hotel conversion and demolition ordinance, 23 of the 46 residential hotel rooms are replacement rooms required by the removal of 23 residential hotel rooms from 235 o'farrell street which is also before the commission today. group house something a permitted use in the e.r. zoning district and for planning code section 134, the subject property is required to maintain a rear yard of nearly 19 feet at the second and third floors. however, the existing building covers the entire lot and provides no rear yard. therefore, the project is also subject to the granting of a rear yard variance by the zoning administrator. the existing building was built 1906 and was previously used primarily as a hostel. the building contains a commercial unit on the ground floor at the corner with claire street that is not part of this project. the entire building has been

vacant since the fire in october 2006 caused significant damage. and since then the building has undergone off and on internal work to repair the fire damage. the planning department received approximately 78 letters of opposition or concern and four letters of support for this project which have been passed out for your review. the majority of public comments from neighbors revolve around the potential operation and management of the proposed s.r.o. group housing project. the concerns stem from the poor management of the previous hostel and many neighbors had also like to see the project offer multiagency services, some level of affordable family housing, and operate under the city's direct access to housing model. there is also a concern that the property owner had unpaid property taxes. however, as of last week the property owner had paid all property taxes for this site in full. the d.r., the previous operation on the subject property was poorly run and maintained, resulting in unhealthy, unsafe and dehumanizing living conditions as well as multiple building code violations, drug use, and

criminal activity. he feels the engel only way to ensure the new development is -- the only way to ensure the new development is to place specific conditions on its approval as proposed in the d.r. application. or have the development operated on the best practices model. the second d.r. request concern is that the proposed playout, the proposed layout's use of shared kitchens and bathrooms. he feels that each unit should have its own kitchen and bathroom which would take it from being a group housing project to an individual dwelling unit project. the project sponsor's response 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 design. however, under the commission, the reform would be referred to the commission as the d.r. applications are in response to the proposed land use and not the building design. the department recommends that the commission take d.r. and approve the project with the proposed conditions in attachment a. based on the fact that the project will replace 23 residential hotel rooms that are being converted to tourist

hotel at 235 o'farrell street and add another 23 rooms to the city's housing stock. s.r.o. group housing is permitted in the e.r. zoning district and encouraged in the area plan. the project will create a permitted use and a currently vacant and underused building. the proposed conditions of approval will help to ensure that the project does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. except for providing no rear yard which requires a variance, the project meets all the requirements of the planning code. and the project is also consistent with the priority policies and the general plan. if you have any questions, thank you. president miguel: thank you. d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. my name is jeff matt and i have been the agent for the d.r. filing and for 18 years, a self-employed commercial interior designer and resident

on shipley street, approximate to the project. i generally support the project as proposed. but with reasonable concerns about ensuring that it will be subject to responsible management for its residents and the neighborhood's benefit. as is detailed in the d.r. filing, the global village hostel was -- before it was closed and subsequently burned, a difficult neighbor. and to most, an unwelcoming hostel. its poor management caused it to be a part of a group of problematic establishments on or immediately across the street from block 3753. these include two liquor stores with history of a.b.c. violations, and sales to chronic ineastbound rats and a 24-hour -- inebriates and a 24-hour hustling and drug sales. it was host to drug dealing and use, probable prostitution, and a home base for at least one repeat car boost operator whom i personally chased back to the

hotel twice before causing his arrest. these issues occur against the backdrop of constant curbside evacuation of human waste and all level of street -- myself and my 10 years on shipley street have been held at gun point, physically and vrblely assaulted, and prevented numerous attempted burglaries of my home and business. obviously, block 3753 has its issues. my concern in offering the d.r. is merely to force the inclusions of conditions of approval that will helpfully help prevent the property returning to its status as a difficult neighbor and host to illegal activity. that this issue has gotten to the point of d.r. speaks to the inability of mr. patel to genuinely engage those who might be approximate to his venture. mr. patel seems to have a track record of needing to be faced with censure before addressing substantive complaints regarding the properties that he owns. the on-site construction

methodology in repairing this facility subsequent to the 2006 fire has been in the eyes of this construction professional substandard. for example, i stopped someone who appeared to be managing the project from dumping four to five cubic yards of construction debris on shipley and thelma street. a notice of violation was issued for failing to mitigate airborne dust during the post-fire demolition. and i have observed a host of sidewalk permit violations during the construction process that my construction company would not be a party to. it is because of these reasons and those enumerated in the d.r. that i believe it is crucially important that this project have attached the conditions of approval listed in this d.r. filing before it is approved. it is not about standing in the way of affordable housing in the city or castigating the urban poor. it is about ensuring that a business owner manage his business in a way that not adversely impact the neighborhood in which it is

located. unfortunately, this location and this business owner do not inspire confidence and it is my position that the planning department has an obligation to a long struggling neighborhood to ensure that this is done by enforceable conditions of approval negotiated by all concerned parties. i ask that this permit not be approved -- be approved until these conditions can be addressed and agreed upon in open negotiation. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. >> the party for whom i was the agent will speak briefly in filling our last time. thanks. >> president miguel, vice president olague, commissioners, administrator sanchez, good afternoon. my name is asmir sali. and i've been a resident for the last 8 1/2 years at claire street. i walked by 374 fifth street on

my way to work every day and on my way back home. so i'm intimately familiar with the building's impact on the neighborhood. we first heard about this project when a notice was posted on the building last december. taking us all by surprise. in the absence of any neighborhood engagement by the project sponsor, our initial reaction was the result of our prior experience with his business practices. and in their reputation. since then, we've worked diligently with community leaders such as mr. jim meko, mr. don falk, angelica drombier and many for their input on the project. while this project is being marketed as an increase in units in the city, let's not confuse quantity with quality. without adequate oversight and accountability, this project will in the long run provide less value to the city and to the hotel's residents. let me be clear. we are not opposing affordable housing. we are not opposing public

housing or an s.r.o. the project sponsors have demonstrated time and again that they're only technology honor their responsibilities only if they absolutely have to. they are absentee owners who have not demonstrated care for the city, the neighborhoods in which they operate, or providing a safe and dignified environment for their tenants. to wit, each and every one of the six hotels which are owned and operated by mr. patel has some 30 to 40 complaints and notices of violation against them within the last decade for fire saist and security violations, sanitation and health issues -- safety and security violations, sanitation and health issues and nonpermitted construction. and taxes were delinquent for the last three years to the tune of $70,000. up until last week when they were finally paid off. commissioners, given that the project sponsors are asking for special dispensation from the city, and given they will only do the very least of what's required of them, if you choose to approve their application, i ask you to hold them

accountable. and attach conditions which i've proposed. thank you very much for your time. president miguel: thank you. the other d.r. requester? >> good evening, good afternoon. my name is steven ron. i believe most of the issues have already been eloquently presented. but i'll add my verbiage to it. my name is steven ron. i have owned my building and operated my photography business on claire street, 259 claire street, since 1979. and i've worked in the selma area for over 45 years. i have, i believe, the third longest history of any current property owner or resident on claire street. and we have always had our an issue -- had our issue with 374

fifth street. age gives you a great sense of perspective. one of those things i'm acquiring and interested in. and it lets you see the cycles of human effect on your surroundings and on our city. during this window of time, my collection of south of market history, i have witnessed the rise of third street since the building of the mosconi center. and i have witnessed the fall of sixth street as it received the migration from the old third street populace. i've experienced the evolution and improvement of claire street from prostitution and drug dealer shootouts in front of my open studio to the current slowly improving neighborhood of condominiums and hard-working tax-paying people. and with the accompanying civility that a city like san francisco should and needs to promote. during the same period of general area improvement, the

building at 374 fifth street remained a source of serious crime, which is well documented in police records, and often witnessed or endured by the local residents. even under the gentrified name of travelers inn, ostensibly a youth hostel, 374 fifth street continued to be a drug and crime site. with the building burned -- when the building burned in 2006, i believe the general sense of relief was felt by many in the area and with a hope that an improvement in the building's use could be looked forward to. i'm here to express my and my neighbors' scompreem disapproval of the proposed exchange or whatever it is of 374 fifth street into an s.r.o. as i have witnessed the effect on a neighborhood of what this will no doubt mean and i believe review the history -- review of the history of both the property owners will show they have poor management records and show minimum concern for the areas in which

they do business. this s.r.o. convergence will not be in the best interests of anyone on the fifth street corridor or its side alleys. i would also like to point out that the fifth street corner, where this property's located, is one of the main entrances to san francisco. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r. applicants. >> i'm sorry. i'm not familiar with the term. president miguel: that's all right. >> someone else. president miguel: speakers in favor. [inaudible] all right. nancy connell henson. matt drake. nancy tucker.

>> good evening. i am here representing the 249 sheply street h.o.a. which is within 300 feet of the 347 fifth street property. since i moved into 249 shipley street in december of 2006, i have heard nothing but negative things about the tourist hostel that occupied 347 fifth street previous to november, 2006. the owner and his partner have not done anywhere near the amount nor type of community outreach that the residents south of market expect. i personally never received any notice of any community meeting, via email or u.s. email. when i asked how the contact list was compiled, it was compiled using only names of people that had contacted the owner's representative's office relative to the project. a very reactionary effort in my opinion. i personally researched several addresses of hotels owned and or operated by the owner and his partner. not limited to but including 347 fifth, 589 post, 64 turk,

6093 market, 74 sixth street. these addresses were provided to me by the owner's representative. i primarily use the city of san francisco complaint tracking data base to complete the research and the results are appalling in my opinion. the complaints on the properties included but are not limited to fire safety, security, sanitation, health, and work being done without permit. oftentimes when the building code or the building department dispatched an inspector to investigate one complaint, many other san francisco housing code violations were observed and had to be dealt with. at times, this required several in-person reininspections of the properties. i request and urge the planning commission not to approve this project. the owner has not demonstrated good neighborly behavior in the past and i personally have not seen nor heard anything in the brief meetings that were held that lead me to believe anything will be different going forward. the 249 shipley street h.o.a. is not opposed to s.r.o.'s or any low income housing. we wouldn't live in our neighborhood if we were. however, we are opposed to this

particular project because of past interaction and past history with the owner. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i live less than one block from this project. and i've lived there since 2002. president miguel: your name. >> my name is matt drake. i wish i could speak in favor of it. i would like to support additional housing in san francisco. unfortunately, i cannot speak in favor of this project. there are several reasons why. the first is the plan of the building itself. 46 units, 10 bathrooms, and two kitchens. that's not really an asset to the community and that's not doing the people who live there any favors. i think that is warehousing people who will live there. the second problem is with the lack of any kind of family

housing. now, i will take the building owner at his word when i ask if there was going to be any family housing offered. and he said no. he was very clear. not only he said no, families will not be allowed. i think that if we are going to be serious about offering family housing in san francisco, we should offer it across the income spectrum. and everyone agrees there's a serious need of family housing and an even more serious need of low-income family housing. if this project was for low income family housing, i would probably be testifying in favor of it. that's what this area needs. that's what san francisco needs. that's off the table. in their negotiations about -- that wasn't really negotiated. that was removed from consideration whatsoever. there were no flexibility on that. and the final problem is the well documented problems of this building. i live right -- very nearby. i remember when it burned. i watched the smoke out my

window. it very rare when -- it's very rare when a vacant building is more of an asset to the neighborhood than a full building. that doesn't happen very often. but that's the case with this building here. as a vacant building, it's actually considerably better for the neighborhood than one that was functioning as a hostel. and that's unfortunate because -- but it goes to how the hostel is operated. now, the owner has claimed that the hostel was under a different lessee. but that really doesn't hold a lot of water as far as i'm concerned. one owns the building, if you on the building and there's drug use and prostitution going on in your own building, you are responsible. and it's sort of -- it's a little too much to say that the lessee had power over that. when you on the building, you on the building. it is your right and your responsibility. therefore, i wish i could testify in favor of it. i wish i could trust the owner, the owner has given us plentyy of reasons unfortunately not to trust him over the last several

years. and so if you're going to approve this project, i would ask you to give the unalts bathrooms and kitchens for -- the units bathrooms and kitchens for their dignity and ask for the conditions further requested in the d.r. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is nancy tucker and i live at 221 claire street which is one building away from 374 fifth street, the building we're talking about. and i want to address this issue at hand which is that you're being asked to approve releasing 23 units at 235 o'farrell and transferring them to 374 fifth street and increasing it to a total of 46 units. we in the neighborhood have opposed this initially and as we learn more about it, we continue to oppose it. we also do not oppose affordable housing.

we do, however, oppose the 46 units going to the owner of the building at 374 fifth street and his partner from 235 o'farrell. that's the issue. the track record for this building and its owner shows that it has been trouble for the neighborhood, for over 10 years. i've lived in the neighborhood for eight years. so i can speak to that. when the building was in operation, there was significant crime in the neighborhood which you heard about. including the drug dealing, loitering on the corner of fifth and claire at all times, clearly visible drug usage on the property. many of us witnessed this on a regular basis including me. when the building was vacant, it was not -- there was a four-alarm fire there which spread to the building next door. and endangering the neighborhood. and consistent with the poor oversight and safety of this building. investigation of the building codes as nanne talked about and as asmir showed the building and owner have numerous violations and complaints.

i would like you to consider some points. the owner wants you to believe that all the problems in this building were due to the lessee. but poor construction and maintenance is the -- is the responsibility of the owner and accountability for the fire is also responsible of the owner. the owner wants you to believe that he has worked with the community. in reality, he has approached organizations like clemon tine -- like clementine and others without notifying the community. the owners have applied last-minute fixes to apiece public pressure. including paying the taxes last week, which the neighborhood organizations, have discovered or putting lights on the outside of the building immediately after a film pack member urged them to do so. that's 10 years too late for the lights on the outside of the building. the owners want you to believe they have a good track record. but when they do cite examples, they're citing s.r.o.'s they

own that are run by in the profits -- by nonprofits and not by them. i'm running out of time. so i would like to say that -- i hope you would consider other options for this building. and that if you do approve this transfer, that you please include the conditions that were proposed, that you include another condition that there is no liquor store rights for the retail space. and that you give the neighbors a way to ensure the conditions are met properly. thank you for your time. president miguel: ryan egg, sidney schneider. leonard ewell. nancy connell henson. >> hello. i live in the psalm pack area, a six-block area that includes this development. my name is brian egg. i've lived in this area for 30 years.

and i've had to deal with the situation at hand, which is now we're in a redevelopment project area. which was initiated by counting people who never lived in our district. and still don't live in our district. and this was done in order to make our area a redevelopment area. in order to use our area as a dumping ground for everything that is not wanted in all the adjacent areas. and this is now what we're up against. we have other areas that don't want their s.r.o.'s, that are using our small area, as a dumping ground. our six-block area already has 28 s.r.o.'s. that's 10% of the s.r.o.'s in the whole city. we also funnel all the poor

people through our one small area. through the homeless shelters in the area. and we promised them benefits along the way. which is unsustainable. now, the only way that the people in our district can get a fair break is if we start with the facts. and that is that these redevelopments public documents need to be made available and need to be made available now. google is available. google wants to come to san francisco. it's time that san francisco put its redevelopment, public records, on google and made them available. so that the people, in these areas, can make decisions for themselves about what's

happening to them. because a lot of people don't have the vaguest idea of why, why we're being used as a dumping area. and why? because these other areas don't want this stuff. you can't have this on treasure island. you can't have it in your new transit hub with your mass transit. no, you have to have it in our six-block area. and that's what we're up against. and i'm asking you not to move forward on any project in our area until all those documents are made available on google immediately. so that -- so that the people in our neighborhood can know exactly what is going on and what has gone on. and the fact is that i have never been represented. because the psalm pack picked my representative and made deals with them and that was the end of it. president miguel: thank you, sir.

sidney schneider, leonard ewell. >> i'm cindy schneider. we own the building at 172 claire. i'll be very brief. because i think things have been pretty eloquently stated. i would just like to express my reservations and my lack of confidence in the willingness of the operators of the hotel in a safe and responsible way, both for the residents. and i ask if you do approve the transfer and the permits. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening. my name is lena ew. i own a restaurant on 351 fifth street.

i have been on fifth street for 16 years. and i just -- i want to make it brief. and i want you to please consider the negative impact that this project will have for all the residents in our neighborhood. and all the small business. and we have been struggling and certainly we do not need a very ill run project like this one. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers that favor the d.r.? >> my name is joel smith and live at 469 thomas street. about three doors down from the intoxication s.r.o. building -- from the nox s.r.o. building and i want to express the same concerns that my previous commenters have made and in support of the supervision and restrictions that they have suggested for the property. thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers

in favor of the d.r.'s? >> my name is tom donora and live at 21 clarinex to the old hostel. i lived there for the past seven years so i remember well when it was a travelers' inn or the global village. as you've already heard the building was very poorly managed. and littered on the claire side of the building. and much worse, it was open drug dealing in front. and i would often complain to the people working there, but total effect, and the problems still persisted. the owner of the building was leasing at the time. so supposedly he had limited control of -- or response for the state of it. now, mr. patel is asking for the city for a variance to change the use. and frankly i think there's a good t