staff. i really appreciate all of the hard work. clear wire is a new wireless internet service provider in the process of launching a neighborhood network. we're proposing the installation of a new wireless facility to provide wireless internet services and ensure the needs of the resident, commercial, and industrial services in the area. clear wire is proposing three palace and one -- three panels and one equipment -- the remaining installation will be on the east side of the penthouse. all of this is designed to match the existing buildings.

[inaudible] and here it is looking west. the existing configuration with the sprint and tena and the additional antenna. this is looking west. this is the existing antenna on the corner of the building and the proposed clear wire which you can barely see on the penthouse. the existing coverage for the laurel heights area is nonexistent. this is a new carrier. that would be the proposed coverage if this was to be built.

thank you for your time. i'm also available if you have questions. >> is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> i would like to ask the director, we are in the middle of a more comprehensive plan regarding coverage. we have many of these have applications had continued. many of these fit into the same discussions because they are only continuing on the first discussions. >> i'm not aware of a plan we are doing. i think commissioner sugaya

asked for clear wire on the coverage plans. this is wireless internet. i'm sorry, i'm forgetting something. i'm not recalling the conditions of the comprehensive plan. >> because we have so much push back on the public, i think that there is a push by the board of supervisors to create a more comprehensive discussion about how much is enough which would mean that to the carriers would start sharing locations rather than establishing&r=q be possi. that's partially in light of potential conflicts in health reports. people are concerned about a larger policy question which i thought was initiated by the board.

>> i will certainly find out. i'm sorry. i'm not recalling anything specific. i certainly know that you have had discussions with individual carriers about looking more broadly at where they might go. i will certainly find out if there is other requests that the board has made recently. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: in response to commissioner moore's concerns, of course, this would -- there's probably more of a national issue and the way it stands now, although as was pointed out, we're talking about internet connections rather than cell phone connections. so we're dealing with a different kind of carrier first of all. and they've done exactly i think what we were asked. and they basically showed us their entire plan and their proposed locations. and we've approved a few of them. but that's just the beginning of the process. so until there's some sort of national policy regarding the competitive situation, that's different from the situation we're in now, i think our only place sloongs it abides by the guidelines -- as long as it abides by the guidelines is to

approve it so i move to approve the conditional use. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i have a question for the project sponsor. i don't know the right term for this, but isn't clearwire some kind of strategic partner or something with sprint? >> yes. sprint is actually a 51% shareholder in clearwire. and is -- clearwire has been deemed an affiliate. commissioner sugaya: so is part of the intent that sprint stays voice and you guys sort of take over the data aspect of it? >> yes, yes. commissioner sugaya: and wouldn't you say that you have wireless broadband, voice and data transmissions, voice will be voice over internet, is that right? >> that's correct. commissioner sugaya: ok. and this is the same system where you're using clear -- whatever the term. >> microwave dishes. >> yes. ok. thank you.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i want to add and thank the project sponsor for providing the long-range plan. i don't think we've seen one -- of course, we haven't asked the other ones yet. >> thank you. commissioner olague. commissioner miguel. thank you. a unanimous vote for approval. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 18. case number 2010.0669-b, for 1259 lombard street. >> good afternoon, president miguel and members of the commission. i'm with planning staff. the item before you is a mandatory discretionary review for planning code section 317 for proposed demolition of the existing single family two-story building. this project was first reviewed by the commission on april 8,

2010. when the planning commission took the d.r. and disapproved the demolition based on a lack of information concerning the historic resources use and past approvals related to the property. the project was then sent to the historic preservation commission for further review on june 2. the h.p.c. issued a memo that found that the property does not retain historic integrity and is not an historic resource. i have copies of that memo if any of the commissioners would like to review it again. based partially on this information, the planning commission then approved the new construction project, proposed for the property, on june 24. however, because of the new demolition permit had not yet been noticed to the public, the commission was unable to make a determination on the demolition at the same hearing. the required noticing has now been completed and the project is before you for a decision. the department is recommending that the commission not take d.r. -- sorry. that the commission -- that's

right. not take d.r. and approve the demolition of the existing single family dwelling based upon the fact the commission has previously granted approval for the construction of two new structures at the property that require the removal of the existing structure. and that the project -- nine of the 18 criteria for consideration of demolition under section 317. that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for any questions you might have. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. brett gladstone for redwood mortgage, the lender that took titles of the property after the previous developer defaulted on the loan and abandoned the project after he started demolition. as you just heard, when the project was put before you on

june 26 for your approval of the building, the public notification was affected and therefore we have to go before you tonight to seek the actual demolition permit. we've resubmitted it. and we hope that you will approve it tonight. i wanted to thank staff for their support. i would like to thank the commission for its 6-1 vote in favor of the new building. and i wanted to remind you that you had asked before approving the new buildings or the demolition that this could go before the h.p.c. for determination of whether it's a historic resource and we're very pleased that the -- they unanimously decided it's not an historic resource. i also want to mention that when you have the building permit plans before you on june, and approved this, the plans may -- called out very

clearly that demolition of everything that's there today except the retaining walls was the necessary part of the new buildings. i know my client, tom burwell, has had a lot of conversations lately with adjacent neighbors. to go over the details of methodologies, of demolition, demolition protections for foundations, etc., etc. and i don't know who's here tonight. but i certainly notice that there's a lot fewer neighbors here tonight, if any, than there was over the past six months of hearings. and i think that may be because of a lot of the outreach lately by tom burwell who's behind me. we would also like to thank the four immediately adjacent owners and tenants who have come here and written in support throughout. and of course the russian hill neighbors have been extremely supportive.

they wrote strong letters of support. they had their doubts once they heard the public testify at the first hearing. they then did their due diligence several times over, interviewed all the parties and looked at the records and came back to you with a renewed letter indicating that the concerns had been checked into. and they feel more comfortable than ever in allowing this to go forward and quickly. one of them was supposed to be here tonight. but probably is delayed. so in sum, we really hope that something go forward here quickly. i know the neighbors do. the site has been in the condition that is shown here for over 10 years. and there's a lot of people who look forward to the issuance of the building permit. and as you know, my client is a mortgage company. and one in good financial

condition. and thus my client has the funds to start work. and remove this blight as soon as the building permits are issued. if you have any questions, there's -- the architect is here to answer them. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. and i think mr. gladstone summarized things pretty well and really happy that the historic preservation commission got a chance to look at this and decided it wasn't a resource and didn't have integrity for getting two family sized units, three bedrooms each and really well-designed. but i think it's -- and so i would move that we do not take d.r. and approve the demo. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is that you do not take discretionary review and approve the demolition as

requested. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. >> we'll take a 10-minute break. >> commissioners, a 10-minute >> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you're on item 19, a, b and c for kice number 2009-ddv for 374 fifth street and 19-c which is case number 2009.0288-c, for 235 o'farrell street. >> the project before is you a discretionary review and variance application for 374

fifth street. the proposal is to convert the existing three-story, 47 room tourist hotel into a 46-room market rate residential hotel with single room occupancy, group housing rooms, on the second and third floors, a 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