maybe you can respond to that. i mean, i know we've heard this isn't necessarily the problem -- is folks coming out the penthouse club. but how are we assured of that? at 4:00 a.m., we just don't have a repeat of what happens at 2:00 a.m. i know there's not a significant number of businesses that are open until 4:00 a.m. how many people are in the establishment at 3:30 that would leave at 4:00? give us some sense of that. >> on weekend evenings, friday, saturday night, holiday nights, there might be 100 patrons present at closing. there's never a crowd in there. keep in mind this was the stone. i have a closet when he was a heavy metal joint. this was a hive of noise and

activity. this is now a sealed box. they set monitors up vallejo above the building. listening for any variation in sound over the course of a four-day period. and it just wasn't recorded that anything came from our sight. >> i don't think that was her issue. her issue was four people started spilling out. >> i understand your question. that really goes to what we expect will take place over the time period. this happens in other cities where there is not a last call procedure. is that people will trickle out before 3:00 a.m. people aren't slamming a couple of drinks and rushing out the door because they're forced to. it's a different kind of between

2:00 a&e 2:00 a.m. and 3:15 thee half a dozen patrons when the club closes on weekend nights. crowed control is never a problem for penthouse club. what happens at closing on the busiest nights is that there's people collected in front waiting for their taxis, waiting for their ubers. the taxis know they'll get good tips. they're waiting at closing time and throughout the evening late at night anyhow. >> what about a six-month trial? >> i would be fully in support

of it. i feel like the conversations i've had with management and staff at this club they're really committed to this community and they have put a lot of money where their mouth is on this. if what they're doing is becoming a negative impact on the community, they'll stop it right away. they won't wait for you to shut them down. >> thank you. i mean, i will be interested to hear what other commissioners have to say. thank you. i came predisposed to voting against it and for the staff recommendation but i think that testimony was compelling and it would be interesting to see what folks think about a six-month trial. commissioner richards. >> i came predisposed to vote no as well. i guess i have more questions. the public testimony was compelling. i did write down here prior to coming to the commission senator wiener's 4:00 a.m. alcohol bill

passes, now the husteller club is open until 4:00 and next club is open to 4:00 and one women said we have a miss out there. we move the mess from 2:00 to 4:00. so, i do worry about that. i worry about our ability to control liveability. nothing should be automatic. if this city choses to participate in that five-year trial study that senator wiener is proposed, i believe it already passed, we have a control on the lid. we just don't have -- everybody will be able to serve alcohol just because they're open. i also wrote down the yard stick is to the general plan, not to the specific business. so, we, on balance, if i looked at this club, i would say wow, this is a model club, they do troy drives, the employees need extra income. they have security and i look and see the staff did a go ahead recommendation on a denial.

i do see that the club is 15,000 square feet. and that is a big club. so, you know, what's the capacity? the legal fire department capacity? it's the sales force dream force. we want to pack the place like we did all these other clubs south of market when i worked there. how many people can we squeeze in there? legally? >> the fire department sets those limitations. i believe it's 800. and we do not currently have seating arrangements or seating plans that would possibly accommodate that 800. but that stretches from the days when it was the stone. when it was a pure dance club. >> terrance was really persuasive. mr. allen you are very persuasive. he said, staggering times have been proven to reduce crime and noise. where are the studies? i mean, concept actuallually its

great. do you have any data on it? i'd like to look at, i think before i would approve anything, the husteller club is open until 4:00. what's the experience with police calls and things in and around the huteller club. these things would make me feel better. the responsible clubs that we can have nuance and reward good behavior. i'd like to do that. >> thank you for that question. it's an important point that i didn't bring up. when we discussed this with then captain lazar, northern station, he was not even aware that the husteller club was open until 4:00 a.m. he had been at that station for more than two years.

it has a younger crowd and more activity. they have not had a police problem. there have been no record of fights or disturbances or police calls specifically to that club in the two to four a.m. period. >> i would be open to a six-month trial period the same nights as the hustler club. i would be open to also hearing back if we have another hearing, which we should, the police captain coming and speaking and lelet us know the experience. also, i would love to see mr. allen's studies that he can produce. i'm willing to do the nuance. you convinced me on the nuance. i would love to do it on a trial period. >> i would ask you add holidays to that as well. >> sure. >> veteran's day. >> blue angels. >> we get into what holiday.

we get into what is a holiday. >> my birthday. >> we've been here before. >> molson street fair. [laughter] >> i am torn both ways on it. i think traditionally we would have liked to have seen a little more discussion city wide. i real lies this is a little bit of a pilot. city wide hearing more from central station police department and not just that department but city wide what the position -- even the board of supervisors what they want to take on 4:00 a.m. after hours. broadway street, i know has suffered since the earthquake and to revitalize that portion of broadway street would be good. on the flip side, i do know they have had troubles. criminal activity and different sort of late-night there. i believe it's because it's

close to the bay bridge. i'm not blaming any particular county but folks that are not from san francisco end upcoming in and partying and it's quick access off the bay bridge. before we go in and do all this i would love to heard from the police department and mr. allen has some thoughts about how the police department would react to that and add either additional foot poll, do you think alcohol is a big part of that problem? and the after hours problems and not serving alcohol after 2:00 a.m. here, that certainly is less of a problem. if we do a six-month trial, how are we going to decide in six months? what's the measure? more complaints by neighbors. zero complaints from neighbors. police department checking in? i would like a little more matrix on what the check-in point and the criteria is. >> i would say all of the above. >> i'm not asking for that right now. part of the reason may be to continue it to give some folks a

reason to hash that out and think about what the measurables are. >> are you up on the roster? i'm sorry, we closed public -- >> we've give you two minutes. we closed public comments. >> i'm owner of the building just across the street. they are specializing special events venue that have been highly -- we have a lot of stuff like that. we are suffering because of the strip points. there are eight trip joints in the neighborhood. same owner. and if they gravitate doubts

debt particle and who knows what, that will be devastating for that neighborhood. who put that bomb a couple years ago that was joe's manager in center for and his cousin. to this day, i have not been paid. not even apologized. all neighborhoods of the hill down the hill are strongly against it. i strongly recommend that if you recommend this, even trial period, that will be devastating to this neighborhood and for the businesses because they are hustelling clients from every business around.

>> if we approve this, what is stopping the other club across the street from making the same application and then before you know it you have two or three or four. maybe that's great, i don't know. three or four clubs owned by the same ownership groups that are all open until 4:00. maybe the neighbors can live with one. but if there are four or five, i'm not opposed to that, i'm just trying to fast forward and think what comes here and does the cannabis club ask for the same conditional use in the area? i see cannabis taking place of alcohol to some degree as a recreational usage increases. while serving alcohol is not

necessarily -- it's stopping at 2:00 a.m., if a cannabis shop were next door it would be a lucrative thing. i don't know if i had a question, i was just throwing out scenarios. >> in the context of th contextb across the street, we filed an application with the planning department. they're a residential hotel tenants upstairs. we spoke to ccdc and it was decided that it wasn't a good idea for that location. we withdrew it. we will not pursue it any further. we've implemented better sound control measures to make sure those upstairs tenants aren't disturbed by that club. >> thank you. >> commissioners, just following the kind of thread of the discussion. i probably would advise you not to limit the c.u. authorization to six months.

then we would have -- the applicant would have to file a new authorization at the time. one thing you could consider is to add a conditional approval or look back. at that hearing, you can also revoke the conditional use authorization and then also add additional criteria and direction in terms of the types of things you want to see from staff and or other agencies for that look back hearings. you can either consider looking at a date certain type of look back knowing that they have to operate for a little while within that new hours range or look at other things and studies that you would either want to see or other agencies which we could coordinate to get that hearing at the time. >> commissioner richards. >> but i think, after hearing commission fong speak, i would hope we can continue this and come back with some measurements on whether this was successful or not. i think we're kind of jumping

off a cliff and hoping we're going to fly. i'd like to also see the staggered time studies. also the police captain come and if the neighborhood can work with the project sponsor themselves on what those measurements are on whether this thing is successful or not, that would really be a win for me. i'm not sure i'm ready to vote yes or no on this today but i would support a continuance. >> commission moore. >> i am not quite ready to support it yet either. i believe that the public has done a very good job presenting comments we need to consider. however, it's not as much employment as it is of use. and i think the issue of appropriateness of land use or change of land use conditions, given the adjacent that i thought were eloquently presented, that is what at this moment guides me. we're here to pretty much look at the presentation of the

planning department to give us all those insights. at this moment, the cons are slightly higher than the pros. as much as i look at two hours, however, they were incost cyst s the employment hours for those when there are no customers anymore. it was a little bit contradictory. that is not the point. i believe at this moment it's not clear enough a story for me to present it and support it and if there is further evidence or further discussions, i think that we need to hear other data to convince me. >> commissioner melgar. >> so, i am actually leaning towards supporting this. but i am swayed by commissioner

fong's points around the upcoming growth of the retail marijuana industry. how that will affect all of the businesses on broadway. i do think that it would be smart for us to look at some data before we pass this. to the point about the upcoming legislation from senator wiener as well. and i would request that when we hear this, hopefully it will be sooner than later, that we have an alternative motion to approve as well. so that we can act on it at the meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. president. with all due respect to the neighbors and the residents, if this was a new application for the same type of use, i don't know if i would be supportive. i did not have my mind made up whatsoever before coming here. i did see the recommendation for

disapproval. hearing everything out, i do respect the fact that there's very high security at these types of establishments. i also do respect the fact that it's an already existing business. whatever could happen at 2:00 could happen at 4:00 and vice versa. i do miss the stone. i went to see a bunch of concerts back in the day there. it's just an old san francisco establishment. this is the neighborhood you go to when you want to go to these types of places. like i said, we're not approving a new venue. this establishment has been there for a number of years. it's part of the neighborhood. again, this is where you go to go to these places. and if anything, i respect the

details they have to take special care of their employees as well. there's differences with these types of usages as compared to just the bars and nightclubs. i'm going to be in support of this today. >> thank you, commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i want to echo some of the comments of my fellow commissioners. i want to share thank you for everyone that came out and shared your personal stories and experiences. i first want to say that i absolutely agree with commissioner k o.p.p oppel this business has been in the community for a long time and done a lot of work to show its support of the community. in this neighborhood, we actually do have precedent for another club staying open until 4:00 a.m. i think our decision here is nuance. i like the idea of giving ourselves time to see how it

goes. making a decision about whether we need to change things based on that. i also do agree that i think it would be great to have a bit more information from the police captain and others to help us truly understand the decision that we are making. i would also be in support of a continuance. i am leaning towards supporting this application. >> thank you. >> i move to continue this item to -- can you help me here. we have some full schedules. >> how much time? >> six weeks. >> six weeks? that would be putting us towards the end of october. we can do october 25th. >> that would be great. >> the express understanding these are the things that we would come back with in terms of additional data points. senator wiener's 4:00 a.m. legislation and what the impact

could be in this city as best we can tell. the proven staggering times, i'd love to see the report on that. the police captain. the number of calls, especially around the hustler club in and around 4:00 a.m. the measures understood as to whether or not this is didn't workout. hopefully you can work with the neighbors on that. understand the cannabis retail applications that are already filed in this n.c.d. and maybe we can get this thing going. i think we can actually just get it off the ground. >> that would be, we'd ask for . it would give us a six-month look-back flexibility. we have a disapproval motion before us. >> just as a point of clarification, in this particular instance, you actual will hactually have the abilityo

approve the project. despite having a disapproval motion in our record, the commission can articulate findings citing necessary and desire ability, for example, reading into the record that staff would approve. you could approve the motion, the project today if you wanted to articulate additional conditions. >> it sounds like there's other information commissioners want beyond just a proving it. >> is there a second. >> second. >> if there's nothing further there's a motion that's been second to continue it to octobe. with direction to staff to prepare an approval motion with the disapproval motion and provide additional information to the commission. on that motion, aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. that motion passes unanimously

7-0. that will place us on item 17. for case number 2015-018150c. 137 clayton street. this is a continual use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. chris mei of planning department staff. at the november 3rd, 2016 hearing -- >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry. if those members of the public exiting the chambers could do so quietly, we have additional business to attend to here. >> i feel like it's 2:00 a.m. out on broadway. [laughter] >> at the november 3rd, 2016 hearing the commission considered a request for conditional use to demolish a two-storey single family dwelling and construction a four--storey three unit residential building within the rh3 zoning districts and height and bulk district. after hearing and closing public comments, the commission moved an intent to disapprove the

project on the basis the demolition of the building and construction of the new building was not necessarily and desirable and did not meet the objectives of the general plan. the city attorney at the time advised the commission that the california housing accountability ability would require that the commission adopt findings that the project would have a specific adverse impact on the public-health or safety and that there was no feasible method to avoid the a adverse impact other than disapproval. they continued the item to december 1st, 2016 and continued the item to allow planning staff an opportunity to prepare a draft motion of disapproval including the findings in accordance with the housing accountability ability. at february 9th, 2017 hearing, the project sponsor requested a continuance which was granted by the commission. on november 2nd, 2017, the tenant occupying the subject

building, who spoke in opposition to the project at the first planning commission hearing, gave notice to the property owner that she would be vacating the premises voluntarily within 30 days. as such, the subject property is now vacant. commissioners, january 1st, 2018, several amendments to the housing accountability act restricted the ability of local agencies to deny approvals for housing projects. that comply with local zoning requirements. the amendments to the act require stronger evidence of a health or safety impact than the act required. since the public indication of the staff report last week, the department has received four e-mails in opposition to the demolition of the existing building on the basis that it retains a significant degree of arctic actual integrity. no changes have been made to the project as proposed in november of 2016. given the recent amendments,

they have a draft motion of disapproval as requested at the november 3rd, 2016 planning commission hearing. that concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is jeremy shaub. thank you for hearing our case again today. our firm represents of owners of 137 clayton avenue. the owner couldn't attend today due to some last minute oral surgery. subject site is a 2,812 square foot lot. they purchased the house in 1985 and group their family there until 2000. at that point they relocated to san diego and rent the outside

the house through 2017. it's been vacant for the past nine months. now retired, they have been excited to move back to san francisco and live in the neighborhood they love. the existing dwelling, as you can see here, was built in 1908 and has not been updated since. the existing house has a narrow living spaces due to the basement can only be used for storage because of non code ceiling height. the original kitchen has not been updated. and the four-bedroom has has one bathroom. the building is not the historic resource. this hearing today is about the demolition of this single family home and the construction of three new naturally affordable family-size units. the owners plan to live on the fourth floor and rent out the second and third floor flats. the existing house value is well above the 80th 1.9 million.

however, because we are h3 it does not apply. zillo estimate the value at $2.8 million. that's more than double the average single family home price in the panhandle. the findings in the disapproval information are exactly backwards. this existing home is unaffordable. the new units will be affordable by design. the existing building is 3,300 square feet while the new units would be 40% of that size. the house could now rent for more than $7,000 and the new units would be closer to $5,000. understanding that we all want to support housing, the previous hearings you asked us to consider an alteration project. a quick study shows that such a project still requires front facade alteration including the steps and addition above the front cornice lane and removal of 2,000 square feet from the

dwelling. this lesser addition project would still be tan a mount to demolition and the character they're building could not be maintained. each unit would be roughly 100 square feet smaller and costing an estimated $150,000 in additional construction costs. existing building is not historic. although some elements do retain their architect actual character. the project sponsor intends to slowly deconstruct the building and save as much of the charm as he can. they lived there for 15 years. they definitely have a fondness for certain aspects of it. he plans to reuse the front porch tiles in the new building entry way, reuse the front door and interior wood paneling. we want to make that a condition of your approval. we will welcome in. you may find yourselves opposed to demolishing sound housing. somewhat counter to that, section 317 is findings the subject site is free of a history of code violations and the housing has been maintained at decent safe condition.

as a city, we need to start looking for development throughout our neighborhoods and not just on parking lots and service stations. the new building follows the prevailing multi family char fewer in the neighborhood. more than 840% o 80% of multi f. this is what the neighborhood zoning intends. the proposed replacement building would be 40 feet tall with three residential flats above a garage. we would rebuild the basement storage with ground floor garage above to provide space for three cars and three bicycles. second and third floors would have two did he do room bed roo. the roof sun occupied. the facade is designed to follow the vernacular of the surrounding neighborhood. with strong over a ground floor end tree. solid wood with term and over hangs. the stucco finish on the ground floor simulates the brick or stone base they are shaped and privacy.

no roof decks are proposed and although each unit will have a small private rear deck. so i am clearly here presenting as an architect not a lawyer but this touches on aspects of the housing accountability ability. so a few things i wanted to point out that retention of architect actual character does not effect the health or public safety. it can cannot be grounds to deny housing application. project would have increased costs for fewer square feet. that makes the proposed edition project feasibility. lastly, the a.h.a. is a added dex. the legislature intent that the conditions that would have a specific adverse impact on public heath and safety arise infrequently. that means the findings and the draft disapproval motion related to affordability, stability and quality neighborhoods are incorrectly applied. in conclusion, approvalling this project would approve a multi

neighborhood. vacant, substandard building will be the location of three new family sized dwellings. we need more projects like this in san francisco. this is necessary and desirable. the project complies with all zoning codes and our residential design guidelines. we request you grant the conditional use authorization and approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comments on this item? go ahead. >> pull the mic down so we can hear you. >> i'm craig harmer. i live across the street from the building. it's a very nice old building. it's 110-years-old. it's in beautiful condition.

it's very pleasant to walk by. it's a new building that is proposed. the apologies to the architect it's bland and uninspiring and severe on the street front. it has a more modern pattern of a very vertical wall facing the sidewalk. it would be interesting to explore putting another unit in the basement area. it was infeasible but i'm not sure that is true, especially if they do a seismic retro fit. even digging down a bit to make room on the case up on the corner. so, i can't speak to health or safety concerns that i haven't even thought about that.

the building is an asset in the neighborhood. the prettiest building on that block. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is tiera price. i'm a next door neighbor. marsha and i representing folks that aren't able to be here in the middle of a workday. thank you for hearing us. we're in opposition to this project for a number of reasons. this is a classic san francisco neighborhood. what that means is it has lots of traffic, very limited transportation options, we're not on any rail lines or anything like that. we have narrow streets and closely packed housing. we have a lot of great things. proximity to the panhandle, beautiful turn-of-the-century homes throughout the neighborhood with a couple of

exceptions. buildings are all within current zoning restrictions. we have that classic san francisco funky feel that we all really like. i guess our biggest problem with this is it's a big negative impact to the neighborhood. our neighbor mentioned, all of the homes are beautiful. this one especially. it's one of the originals. it has a lot of charm. the architect stated nicely that the house has not been updated. it could use a remodel or a facelift of some sort. i think there are a lot of options to maintain the character while make in making f the space and making sure the house is maintained. one other thing, our houses are closely packed. the building next door, we have very strong concerns that the foundation is very near to ours. if they're digging down or

trying to demolish this building, we have major concerns it's going to disrupt our foundation as well. i'll let marsha speak but thank you for hearing us and i urge you to vote down this proposal. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marsha. my son mark and i own the property located at 133 clayton, which is the middle level of the building immediately next door to 137. we have tremendous concerns over the proposed demolition of the single-family home at 137 clayton and the construction of a four--storey three-unit building. tara mentioned a number of concerns we have, not only is this a neighborhood with a wonderful personality, this particular home has beautiful molding on it, it has classic bay windows, door stoop, all the

features that give the neighborhood the charm that it does have. the height and the depth of the building will also impact the tenants or the owners of the building immediately next door from a lighting standpoint as well as from a view standpoint. these are important features to the quality of life. also, of course, would impact properly values. natural light and view are a good selling points. we would have concern for the integrity of the building if this other one were to be demolished. not wanting to compromise anything with the building at 131 and 135 clayton street. for these reasons, i appeal to you to decline this permit or this request for this demolition and construction at 137 clayton street. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. mike bueller with san francisco heritage. i'm here to support staff's original recommendation to disapprove this item. actually i have a personal connection to this block. i lived one block away on clayton street for a few years after law school. i'm very familiar with the neighborhood. it is remarkably cohesive as a neighborhood. certainly, this particular home is unusual for the neighborhood which primarily is comprised of two-storey flats. it's obvious it's been well scared for for a century, the fact that so few alterations have taken place. and reading the valuation for the building, it's really an accident that this, in my opinion, that it building is not deemed a historic resource. it is in deed surrounded by eligible districts on all sides and as noted in report, it's a half block away from the nearest

boundary. i also believe that the planning department, since the h.r.a. has been prepared, was completed, has been doing additional survey work of this area as part of a process for establishing the boundaries for potential future historic district and it would be interesting to know whether any additional findings or evaluation of this building has taken place since christopher plank prepared his report. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> laura clark. again, you know what i'm going to say. this is replacing a single family home with three units of housing. that's great. we're talking about not affordable housing. we're talking about a very unaffordable, maybe pretty to some, a house that are not

declared historic. it's not an accident that it's not historic. it hasn't been declared historic. we need to be talking about tearing down single-family homes in order to build multi family housing. that's kind of what is next. i love it when we're building on parking lots. i love it when we're building on old industrial. but some single-family homes are going to be torn down and turned into multi-family housing and that's good. we get more people living on our wonderful little peninsula. the one concern that i think is completely valid is the concern they had in 2016 about that tenant. i reached out to the tenant. they have not gotten back to me. but they chose not to vacate the property. it could be they got a buy out. i'm not sure. they have been contacted numerous times and are not putting up any opposition to this. next door neighbors who don't want to see traffic or light or

views impacted are not valid concerns. those are not concerns that need to be taken into account when they have a severe housing shortage and we need to be building multi family housing exactly in these places. it's right near a hospital or bus lines. it's right near golden gate park. we want more families taking advantage of those amazing resources. there's good schools. there's good employment opportunities. any family would be happy to live in these three units. so please, approve this project. thank you. >> thank you ms. clark. any additional public comments? >> my name is leo. i just wanted to say, that property is in an area that is been increasingly looked over. it's been turned into more of a

little simpler of a retail area. i don't think people take the real estate for its historical significance around the panhandle part of that neighborhood. it has to be taken more serious. there will be a time when that area is looked at the way we look at ashbury heights. it has to be thought about. i don't think it should be knocked down yet. [ please stand by ]

of integrity as a distinguished example. and so when we talk about things under ceqa, and we talk about criteria three, we're saying while this could be a good example. and it is a nice building, it doesn't rise to that level of significance as it was a

distinguished example of a classical revival style. so in that regard, when we talk about integrity, one, it's hard to talk about integrity until they've actually determined significance, one is that this building doesn't necessarily have significance under ceqa. >> commissioner richards: okay. i would love, when we do here, item number 21, for you to walk us through how that was determined to be significant under ceqa because it looks like any run of the mil east lake stick. to the common man, the naked eye, they just appear to be similar or higher level on this one. >> so basically, what we do first is we look at the building to determine whether or not it has significance under the four criteria of significance. if it has significance, then, we can determine a period of significance, and then, through that, we can determine whether the building meets the seven aspects of integrity. >> commissioner richards: okay. so mr. bueller said there was

survey work that was being done around this property. has anything appeared in terms of historic district. >> there was a district that was nearby that was looked at as part of this, and we determined the criteria for that district did not include this district. while there are, you know, a variety of residential properties that are along this stre street, there is, you know, different levels that are expressed, so it doesn't necessarily rise to that level of confusion that we would look for. so there's some nice examples of building, but that's true of many residential neighborhoods in san francisco. >> so in 1967 junior league, i happened to turn down this street, put a footnote in there about this building, would it be considered historic? >> that is the departments policy, yes. >> if somebody drove down the street, and the windshield survey, and they did one of those nice forms in pencil of which my house has one, would

it be considered a resource or not? >> no. >> commissioner richards: office never adopted? okay. maybe we should consider another preservation element is to do the 76 survey to actually have some force. okay. thank you very much. that helps me. i have to tell you, mr. schwab, we had her get up earlier and talk about what was his toric preservation and what was not. i think it's laughable for you to get up and say these homes are naturally affordable when 1300 square foot, unit 137 would be 1.8 million. that's ridiculous. i just want to tell you that. i don't buy that in the least. i also don't buy that adding additional units is infeasible. you have a very great house.

another house here with mr. pearlman did a great job adding another building. we weren't concerned about the density, we were concerned about the fact that you were taking this building down. interesting enough, this also belies the fact, for lack of a better term, we heard positions on sb 827, local jurisdictions have all the control over demolitions. according we don't, according to what you're saying, so that was, i think, absolutely false. when we have that come back with us, we have to make sure this city at least acknowledges that, that every single-family home, if it's upzoned, is possible for elimination. i think that we can -- you know, we did ask for -- and the other question was, how did -- were the tenants bought out? we had five tenants get here -- i think it was five.

most of them were nonprofit buildings. the sign appeared on the building you were going to demolish your building while you're living in here. what happened to all the tenants? they just magically left? >> this is to the best of my knowledge, so with that caveat, there's one master tenant on the lease who departed in december of this year of her own volition. there are four bedrooms, so there were three subtenants soon after the hearing one, also just left of their own volition. one did file a wrongful eviction, which is what you saw in the record, but that was a disagreement with the master -- >> commissioner richards: that was in 2014. that was well before. >> okay. so as well as i know, everyone left by themselves. no money was exchanged. >> commissioner richards: okay. i have no other reason not to disbelieve you, but given the fact that we have these tenants come here, i'm a little suspicious that he see in the

city -- that i see in the city, that people go around some of laws. i'm -- [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: please. can you speak into the mic. you're saying there are residents there currently? >> yes. i don't think they're visitors because they're people i've seen a number of times. there are people there. i don't know if they're technical tenants, have a lease, but it's not vacant. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. sir? >> long that line, they apparently just had a fiberoptic line added to the house. at&t just put that into our neighborhood three months ago. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. i am not opposed to density here. we should have three units. it is zoned three units, but i think the new unit should be incorporated into existing building. we see over and over again on projects here. mr. pearlman can do a great job

at it, just like we saw here on rhode island street. you've come back here with more threats, and i'm not supportive of the project as it is, but i'm supportive of the density how it can be done in here correctly. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so i think commissioner richards said most of what i was thinking. this was one of the first projects that came before the commission after i had been appointed, so i remember it really well. and i think the thing that i remember the most is your presentation, mr. shaw, when why we couldn't have three units in the existing building, and you explained that in order to do what you wanted to do, you would have to put in a beam and raise the building. and what i remember is you just wanted parking. you know, i think that's what this was about. you are trying to demolish that because you want a parking

spate underneath those three units. so i think you can get the three units in here. probably three units in an a.d.u., i think it's not about density, i think this is about parking, and that kind of breaks my heart because you know, we do need more housing. the housing probably won't be affordable, but i don't think it's a fair trade for our city in terms of policy, a parking for a car and, you know, giving up the wonderful character that this particular structure adds to the street. and it is only -- you know, your comment about it not being on traffic corridor, it's right street to fulton. you can get three families in this structure. it'll be a really nice reuse of this structure, and you can get through families in there. that's how i stand on this

issue. >> president hillis: mr. chavez, i remember this case pretty vividly, too. we talked about doing an alteration or some tantamount, i'm supportive of having three units. you can even have four units if you keep the existing building and just expand and add an a.d.u. where you're now putting a garage and storage, and take the existing two floors, make them units, add who are on the thely -- horizontally in the back. i think commissioner melgar has a great point. i think to put four units in here, it would be at the expense of parking and preserve elements of the building. it may be tantamount to demolition, it may not be, depending on the calculations and how you can do it. but i thought that's where you all kind of agreed to head

during our last meeting. again, i think you can get more units with the -- you know, parking would lose here, but it is a great neighborhood where the panhandle bike lane is adjacent to this, the hayes street bus goes by, the fulton street bus goes by. >> it's ultimately driven by the construction costs, and i didn't get to my presentation, but we did have a local contractor look at the possibility of doing an alteration project versus a demo, and that's why i said in my presentation the new construction is far cheaper and it results in a better building. >> president hillis: do you have the plans? you just presented a concept. >> no, i just have the bid from the contractor. i sent them a very simple schematic. >> president hillis: it would be good to see that. i think density, it's an hr-3

with a single-family home. there's going to be pressure on single-family homes in higher density neighborhoods to become and expand to become additional units. i think it's great, but we also have to do it, you know, in a smart way. i agree there's some -- i don't know why this is not a historic building, which you could even put three units in even if it was historic, and the project we have later is not. i think we've got to kind of figure that out why this is. maybe because it's not victorian, and it's kind of more edwardian, and we ignore those. i agree with commissioner richards. the one on rhode island, they're a dime a dozen around the city, so if that same kind of rationale is being used, we should demoevery 120-year-old victorian and build new units because they're not historic. that, i think we need to kind of clarify how we do historic. miss clark is thumbs up on

that. but clearly what defines san francisco is the character of our neighborhoods and our architecture. i agree we need more units and there's a tension between those two, but i think we need more units, and you can do both there. actually, i think it's simple. actually i think you can get four units. i'd love to see a unit with an inlaw and no parking, and i think you can do it. >> the one thing that comes to mind with fourth unit, which understanding i love more units here but with the existing layout as is, it's to provide an a.d.a. accessible unit is going to be nearly impossible, which is required when you get to four units. >> president hillis: it's even when you required three units and you're adding an a.d.u. to the building? i'm not quite sure it is, or mayor breed might be altering things as her effort to try to get a.d.u.s unstuck from various agencies here, so we should at least explore.

but again, i think we're doing things -- i think we're demoing this building in order to get parking in and not three units under the guise of three units. we shouldn't demoat the expense of parking. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would support everything that you all said. i believe that adding units is something we really need to be aware of. however, adding in the context without demolishing the existing building is the way to travel. i'm getting a little suspicious to hear that a contractor estimated this to be cheaper to build a new building. i kind of -- either it's very cheap construction or the numbers don't take into consideration the already built in value of the building that is still in good conditions and with retention. so i think we're doing what

we're always doing, support densefication yet not at the expense of demolition, and i think it requires a bit of creativity, i think mr. pearlman and attempt to sell other buildings is a good example, so i'm making a motion, what do we do? we deny the application as it is, and it needs to go back and be resubmitted as directed by this commission. >> commissioner richards: staff's recommended the motion. >> president hillis: i think we do start to run afoul of housing accountability act issues. i don't want to deny this project. i like three units in this project. my problem is parking. i'd like to see a project come back that retains some of the facade -- 15 feet of the facade or 20 feet of the facade, add a top floor, i apologize to the neighbors, but i'm not

necessarily as concerned with the views from the neighbor, either, but you can see three views on three units in that building, possibly an a.d.u. on the ground floor with no parking. i don't think we'd deny this project and have them start all over, i'd like to see three units done in a more sensible way on that lot. >> commissioner richards: we have two motions. >> president hillis: i don't deemed -- whether we disagree with it's being historic or not, i somewhat disagree that the building is historic, but the professional staff and expert that was used deemed it not historic. i'd like to see the building be preserved and not demoed, or tantamount to demo, if you can preserve the first 15 of it and set the first floor back, you can get the same square foot i can't imagine as you're getting

here, it's going to cost you less, and you wouldn't have the -- >> commissioner richards: i hear you. we have two motions in the packet. >> just to be clear, if the existing unit is not demolished or is not tantamount to demolition, they can do this just through a staff review. they wouldn't have to -- they wouldn't come here as a conditional use. >> president hillis: they may have to do a tantamount to demolition. >> vice president melgar: that's even cheaper. >> yeah. just pointing them out because that may be cheaper if they don't have to come back before the commission. >> president hillis: if it's tantamount to demolition, you cannot add a fourth unit under the a.d.a. rules because it would be new construction, but it would be good to look at those. that's what i thought we were going to get at this hearing, and it seems that mr. schaub's

done some work. >> the question is if the second motion suffice is for what you're trying to do. >> commissioner richards: i don't think it does because we don't have a project. >> you're talking about the second motion of approval? >> commissioner richards: yeah. >> i don't think it would because that project is the complete demolition. >> commissioner richards: got it. sorry. >> president hillis: and it includes the ground floor -- includes the parking. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: so i watched the old hearing earlier this week, and i think what really struck me about it was i do believe that this commission did ask, actually, for more housing and more density. when i was looking over the plans, i live in this neighborhood, it's incredibly walkable, it's bikable. it's near several bus lines, i was wondering why there was three units of parking in the bottom. i am not attached to housing that is not historic. i think we do need density, and we are going to have to knockdown some buildings to be