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
[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 s
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
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, result
points out that the s.r.o. group housing is permitted while a tourist hotel is not permitted. so it will bring the subject more into conformity with the planning code. additionally, s.r.o. s are supported and encouraged in the area plan. the first d.r. requester and project sponsor have worked to provide conditions of approval to address the operational issues. the department reviewed those conditions and determined which ones that both fell under the purview of the department and were enforceable by the department. those conditions are provided as attachment a in your packet. the project sponsor feels these proposed conditions of approval are reasonable solutions to this issue. and support the planning commission taking d.r. and approving the project subject to those conditions. this project was not reviewed by the residential design team because it did not fall within a residential zoning district and additionally the d.r. requester s concerns did not include external desig