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 thing because the city can take concrete actions to ensure the building is run properly. by adding the conditions of approval outlined in the d.r. filing. sam patel has said in the future you will -- he will run the building him ssm but within his rights to lease it to another company. then again the neighborhood could be in a position of having badly managed property on the block. which mr. patel doesn't take responsibility. so to guarantee that hotel is run safely and properly, i believe the approval of the project should be contingent on satisfying the conditions of approval outlined in the d.r. filing. thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the discretionary review applicant? if not, project sponsor.

>> good evening, president miguel, commissioners, eileen dick for lebron and martell on behalf of the hotel -- vicas 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 redundancies bill to those conditions and we think that they will be successful. the second point i want to make is that this has become personalizing in a way that attack set -- credibility and what happened to the ability for us to be frank?

we are very frank in every meeting. we understand your frustration. a fire has happened in the intervening years and there has been an effort to upgrade. we not only proposed the conditions but we installed a security lighting prior to any operation. we were making modifications to the interior to accommodate. what happened is that i am disappointed in today's e-mail which was a treat it that said and i will read a couple of tips which emphasized that this is a referendum on -- and that is not the way we want to approve the project. we understand the concerns. this is consistent --

we understand the concerns. we also need to look at the bigger picture which is the hotel conversion ordinance which was passed in the 70's for the reason that we are here today. this is to preserve his that are in hotels and mixed residential hotels and insure that those units remain forever in the city housing stock. the benefit that this project poses is that they are providing an additional 23 units. these are not your traditional units, these are units that are at a hundred and 10 square feet. they will have a wash basin and will be fully furnished.

something to toot our horn about is that we are doing and access of two q any questions. -- two community kitchens. we are providing a 1450 square foot for open space. one of the significant things to keep in mind is that this is one of the open public spaces for property. we are strongly encouraging people to do this. we are providing high quality housing and the conditions that the city has proposed means all of the concerns with respect to safe and healthful operation. the last thing i want to state is in respect to some of the

allegations that have made. they have 30 or more code violations. as a former to get the city attorney, i can tell you that the city would love to be part of the hotels. >> two speaker cards in favor of the project sponsor. >> hello, everyone. this is south of market street. this issue went through the community. we approved this. quite simply, the reality is that we had two options. we use the building or this remains vacant.

there are really no permanent residence. everyone has been there for three or four days a week. if those other situations as we get through the behavior problems. outhis is better than it has be. we have to have a lawsuit. we had a lawsuit against the previous owners 15 years ago. this has improved and this is

essentially a used building with people in it and it will be better for the neighborhood. i would encourage this project to -- >> good afternoon, commissioners. when i was young, i heard a statement from john kennedy who said "we are who we are today because of our yesterday." only by going 3 yesterday can we understand going to tomorrow. all of these for the most part have the same problem.

it just happens that some of them are not at the neighborhood like you find on fifth street. most people avoid the area and they don't want to have any accounting. we can define the area and improve the quality of life issues. when asked whether or not there are decent family housing, we said no. considering what could be done, this would not be in the best

interests of families to share that space. there is an increase of green space on the rooftop. they recognize there were problems in the past but they were willing to comeback. they have made it perfectly clear that they are more than willing to work with the labour association. i've heard the frustrations and nice share the same frustration. here we are today. what can we do to improve business? when you improve our subcommittee, you come out with a subcommittee. they scrutinized the process.

there is an income by which you don't find a lot of the social services. i urge you to move ahead. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. just a brief history. this is back before there was a popular jazz club back in the 80's. hawks after the earthquake was closed, it was rebuilt. the city came back and it was the telly. let me tell you, this was a very

popular place. hi anyway, then the fire happened. then the tourists would have a residential hotel in said. this building will make all of the building codes for off brand use. you can have on new fixtures throughout. you have furnished rooms and two kitchens. you have to have a committee room and they're not really required in the hotel's. it will have a lot of process to

it. one of the other speakers mentioned instead of having people who are coming by spending two or three days and then leaving, you can have people living there it cannot work out. i urge you to go ahead and approve this project. >> you each have two minutes for rebuttal. >> my main concern with what has been said is the forgiving of past transgressions. i believe all of those people who of spoken have been concerned about this.

the concern is the actual situation that some provisions have teeth. some things are attached to this permit that we can hold up and say that you people have made this mistake again and hopefully it will not come to that. we will go back to the planning commission, we will go back to enforcement. this is not about the usability. i have to work on this. hhennes i don't suppose that ths is a nice restaurant and this is a bit funny. also, my notes say that i did thus received any notice of this. i have been there for nearly 20 years and it seems like i'm just the sort of president that the

project sponsor might be concerned to speak with and that did not happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to address the allegation that i did not respond to any request for trying to reach some kind of settlement or agreement with the project sponsor. in fact, i've actually written about this so i would like to consider this possibility. the last e-mail exchange that i had is a discussion about this. this is an untruth characterization of the facts.