design guideline. technically the project isn't subject because the guidelines don't go into effect until april but it's a relative issue and looking at it the urban design guidelines adopted last week contain 24 specific goals. and it's virtually impossible for every single project to meet every single goal. i think we need to sort of analyze the project based upon the comprehensive goals and policies that are in the u.d.g. and with this particular project there may be some goals where the project may not excel but i think looking at it in whole i think the benefits outweigh the minor impacts for the project.

>> good afternoon. jessica range, planning staff with the environmental division. we did conduct an analysis of the air quality impact in the courtyard without the building and with the proposed building and the results are in your c.p.e., specifically table 5 and the west courtyard would experience a reduction in the particulate matters and the central and east courtyards would experience an increase but it's well below the threshold the city has and the thresholds are more stringent, lower than the air district's own threshold. and in regards to the air quality report it was both reviewed and scoped with staff at the air district. any further questions? thank you.

>> commissioner: commissioner koppel. >> we do need housing. this is a large opportunity site. there's a couple things i can't ignore. i can't ignore the testimony from the bay crest residents or what steven williams brought forth today. we approved a project earlier today that at first glance blocked what is not just a light well but a courtyard light well. so i'm looking at page 23 of these drawings and i'm trying to get a vision of the perspective looking down on this and a can't get around the fact that i think this building should be flipped 180 degrees and mirror that courtyard. again, i'm listening to the residents that live next door. i can't ignore them. i do want to see the project. i would like to see more

v.m.r.s. i'd like to support higher level v.m.i.s, anything to get the project feasible. i'm not trying to shoot this one down, but just looking at this project, i'd be in favor of it if it was flipped around and mirrored the existing courtyard. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> this is probably one of the hardest ones i've had in nearly four years. i agree with commissioner koppel and i agree with a lot of things and we hear these projects week in and week out and if it's not you or you or you we have somebody somewhere else and we sit through the public comment, we put it through the public policy lens and take your opinions and public testimony and we are able to -- i think

good decisions and balance everybody's needs. this building does cause an impact. i agree we need more housing here. i think it's a great place to build it. i think the tide water folks are wonderful people bep had a project at 1028 market and fabulous people. i think there's fault what i'd say false trade-off. i don't agree with commissioner koppel and the building being flipped around but i don't believe the current structure as-is meets what i would call downtown project authorization the commission my grant exceptions for projects of outstanding overall design and complimentary so the design and values of the surrounding area.

the project doesn't do that. i'm sorry, it doesn't. regarding the urban design guidelines i laid awake last night reading them and thinking about them, even if we got away from the urban design guidelines we have plan code guidelines that we're not add hearing to and that has the force of law. and respect to open-space corridors and block of light and air nor block views of adjacent buildings. the height and bulk should be designed to maximize sunlight to open space and major pedestrians corridors and that includes popss. i can't support the design as-is. i can support a two-tower concept and support a rezoning to allow for more height to maximize the number of units but still achieve the public policy

goal of connecting the two courtyards and putting as much as housing in there? how would i do that? there's been accusations and it's based on a feasibility study based on true financial data with peer review. if we need to make up for the units that are lost because we want two towers, let's look at the numbers and see how high we have to go and let's make decisions on the height. >> >> commissioner: i want to follow-up with environmental planning staff. just the idea on the air quality of the courtyard and central courtyard. so how is that measured with the building. what causes that increase? >> good question.

we have a computational fluid dynamic model. it's not how we do traditional ceqa analysis. it's meant to address the concerns address with the previous project and it takes into account the wind pattern and a lot of more accurately than the traditional model approved by the echltd p.a. and approved by the e.p.a. and what was the question? >> commissioner: how you modelled it and what causes that. sit a lack of air flow? >> just as the folks have pointed out you are putting the building that can -- it changes the patterns. that's why you see in the west courtyard you see a decrease but then in the central and east courtyard you see an increase because of the various air flow

patd -- patterns. >> commissioner: in percentage of increase, can you qualify that. you have the numbers in the chart but -- >> so we're talking about the east courtyard -- >> commissioner: the central courtyard. >> okay. the increase there is .031 micrograms per cubic meter and the threshold the city established is .2. and if you would like to have a greater understanding of what that means, the clean air act and the federal clean air act both establish a pm .25 standard of 12. that includes background levels and everything. so the .2 threshold is the

project's contribution to that overall amount. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. and in the design -- and i appreciate your presentation, but so if bay quest were to be built today, you mentioned that that courtyard was how large? >> 75 x 110. >> commissioner: i imagine -- the proposal would block the 75 feet on one side. it's the short side. >> if the proposal were built the short side would be 75. >> commissioner: you'd have a wall with a five-foot set back and add five more feet to the courtyard for open space. mentioned something, i thought

was interesting, if it were built today and the planning department would measure the composure would you look at the buildings on either side? would you consider a presumed building? >> no, when we look at compliance with exposure we verified there's at least one building that meets certain specifications by the billing department and faces an open area that has to be at least 25 feet at the ground floor and then that has to increase by five feet for every additional floor above that. for bay crest given they have a parking level podium. basically they're courtyard is above the podium and where their living units are. if we take those numbers and we

calculate them, they could need to have a courtyard that is at least 75 feet in every horizontal direction in order to comply with the current standard for the planning code. their courtyard measures 75 x 110 so it would still be in compliance with the department's exposure requirement. >> commissioner: all right. i think -- i agree with folks here. this is going to be an impact on the residence of bay crest. there's no doubt. whether it rises to the health impact that i think we heard articulated today, i think what we're hearing from the department and we're not experts on this but we have to rely on the data, we think the department as an objective thirty -- third-party projection rise to that level with the air quality issues the

project wouldn't increase it in a significant way. we need to take them off the table and the next issue is is this project designed in a way that's most neighborly. we should look at something like this two-tower alternative but i think it's been years in the making this project and a get this hasn't really changed from the first time it was proposed and i think for a lot of reasons. i think one issue that ta mitigates it for me and leads me to be more supportive of this is the usual size of the open space that bay crest already enjoys. we did just approve this project. it has small open space. fit was built today with the new proposal it would meet all the requirements in the exposures which we rarely see in the project. we generally will approve

projects that every unit does and meets the exposure requirements because we recognize it's a dense urban environment and we're trying to fit that. so i'm not quite convinced that we should reject the proposal. i'd like to find ways to make it more neighborly but i'm hard pressed to do that. commissioner koppel your idea to flip it say good one but it leads to units on the ground unit that will never work. and it's daunting to the next door building. one question i want to ask is to the architect, can you come up for a minute and put up -- if you give me a level 7 or 6 floor

plan if there's one on the overhead. >> commissioner: so the two-bedroom unit in the middle, just kind of a simple question which you'll tell me why it's wrong probably but say you took

three of those units out from the top three floors and had a notch in this building that allowed some light and air to get through. it's a significant amount for the courtyard at bay crest, why isn't that feasible? >> that will essentially at the moment you can see a staircase on this side and this side and one elevator bank so national nationally -- essentially one vertical core. as soon as you take a piece out unless the core connects you'd be forcing an addition staircase and potentially an addition elevator. you're creating a two-tower scheme but on the top floor. >> commissioner: so might as well put an elevator on the other side. >> you need an additional stair and elevator. >> commissioner: and one you could make it up potentially with filling in where you come

off main and beale, which i think is a product of the rincon hill design and you have the setback 10 feet which is meant for a tower and i think your design on main and beale is better if that building were entirely on the street front all the way up. you're kind of -- the design on the lower floor. i know you can't do it it's against code but your design and the facade of those units and it turned into a black -- blank wall. i get that's the point but taking out two of the three-bedroom units. could have an open corridor where that is? as long as you made the connection it wouldn't retire

-- require it but you'd lose units in that case. case. it's similar to the scheme which was studied trying to keep the openness but not have the added staircases. you end up with the amount of enclosure for the space you have becomes relatively expensive. >> commissioner: on this scenario. >> it would be a hybrid. and the upper floor would have the impact of the scheme. >> commissioner: i'm saying on the top three floors lose three units and have an open -- and

again, there's a balance between losing units and being neighborly to that open space. i think that's all i'm trying to look for is explore options of are we being the most neighborly without diminishing too many units building. i think that courtyard's sizable. it's bigger than what we would normally -- more than we would ever see now the way it was built with the setback off the streets and it's not a design we would propose currently. we'd have a build an s'more courtyard a we'd have a building with a smaller courtyard and it's about ways to be more

neighborly. >> my moment was when i looked at the overahead map, this tall tower to the west is how high? >> which building? >> commissioner: if you look at the triangular blue where your pencil is and keep going to the west. right there. >> the tower portion is 240.

>> it's approximately 120 feet. 180 feet. >> commissioner: and bay crest is what, 135? >> thereabouts, yeah. and the other building? >> commissioner: across bay street. >> maybe 130. >> commissioner: though there's a lot of issues with if we do the two tower we'll mess with the people on this side, they're already looking at 120 or 150-foot building looking this way. why can't we build the two towers to at least the height of the bay crest or higher? >> the problem is zoning to start with. this was approved by the board of supervisors for a certain height. >> commissioner: project

sponsors can request a rezoning. >> they don't too because it shows your flaunting the most important rule in the planning coat. i hear you but it's the last resort and it take it out of the plan the project is designed to be consistent with the rincon hill plan and when you start rezoning in an area to taper down a height -- >> commissioner: i sat in yesterday and he said they're going to taper down and a looked at said it does taper down but look at this. it tapers down even with an increase in height. >> we went through the scenario and the planning department said no. they don't want to process it. that's why we're here. we could have started a much more robust process for a very big effort but we're designing

to the zoning. >> commissioner: you were saying there's some requirement that things get recorded when there's a pushback and we have a project sponsor saying they wanted to do two towers. that's what i heard the planning department said no, we want you to do -- i'm looking at all the data and they said they wanted you to do two towers. >> they could design it as two towers. that's not a problem. they're saying there's no profitability there and that's not a design consideration but if you look at the code section 309.1, it has a specific procedure in it that is supposed to explore the pushback on design considerations. we're supposed to have a report from the director in our hand now that says the project sponsor didn't want to comply with x. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. director rahm.

that specific item he's talk about is if we literally did not support the design. we obviously recommended approval of that design so it's a moot point. i think the other thing to mention is we do have a concern with a plan that's only a few years old to change the plan. i think that's correct. just like we don't sort of haphazardly change the other neighborhood plans that we have put forward because we're concerned adopting a plan should -- we're changing it -- we're looking at several blocks of the hub at an intersection as a one-million change not a whole parcel change. i get your point and it's up against the bay bridge and from an urban design standpoint we preferred the two-tower scheme but as we went in this motion we met behind closed doors. we have lots of meetings we meet

with people on, come upon but the two-tower scheme requires two elevators and two stair towerses at each -- towers. the notion we could do two towers that are higher -- the scheme presented was higher than we'd be comfortable with but there say reluctance to reopen a plan and change it on one parcel. that's my concern. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> i'm going to try to make a mome motion to approve. i'm not sure where we are. i agree with commissioner richards the obvious thing is to try to get more hype but i don't

think it's a good idea we spot zone parcels because it make it inconsistent and you are chasing s.u.d.s and special zoning changes. with i'm going to make a motion to approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner: shall i call the question? >> yes. >> commissioner: on the motion to approve with conditions. commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> no. >> commissioner: the motion fails 3-2. >> is there an alternate motion? >> move to continue with the direction to have staff work with the project sponsor on a two-tower scheme in conjunction with potentially the supervisors office and see what it would take to keep the name number of units but increase the height.

>> commissioner: what about the notion of carving out units? if they're concerned about air flow and air quality, i think that would do it. >> commissioner: it didn't have to be a 100% match. >> second -- >> commissioner: i can't make a motion. oh, you're continuing. all right. >> the clerk: for how long? >> commissioner: a couple months. >> commissioner: it depends if year looking at alternatives within the zoning envelope or -- >> commissioner: in some respects we'd like to be back as quickly as possible because i looked at this and i don't think it works. >> if we took the units at the

top it would potentially increase the light but the circulation would still be a wall and the net result would be -- >> commissioner: what if you had -- we've seen in other projects where it's open walkways. covered but open walkways. if you took the three two-unit top four, two bedrooms out and just did more transparent opening or walkway. i think there was one in the tenderloin you'd have a notch in the building but with three pathways going across to the other unit. if the concern the neighbors have is circulation, that would get air in the space and light in the space in a neighborly gesture with trying to lose a minimum amount of units. >> the air circulation would be

in close proximity to the bridge. >> commissioner: you'd only used it if you lived on one side of the top three floors. it could be covered. the seventh floor could be covered by the eighth floor and you'd presumably have a cover but open to allow for -- and we did it in the tenderloin where we had a secondary building behind the first to provide some circulation to the rear building. again, i think it's an appropriate project give jon given the size of the courtyard but trying to be neighborly and going to a zoning change is, i think, dramatic. >> project sponsor craig young, the idea of a bridge has been

explored and an appreciate where you're coming from in trying to alleviate the concerns of the neighbor here but the challenge is in the two-tower scheme the challenge is the requirement for an addition elevator and any additional -- >> commissioner: it wouldn't be a two-tower scheme. >> i'm describing where it would go to your point. if we take a notch from the center and you have a second tower veep even on one floor you need the elevator access. >> commissioner: i'm not saying that. >> you're saying just leave the corridor. so if we take out a unit and put an corridor with glass that's translucent, we can do that. >> commissioner: i think you

should look at that. it will be good to explore that. >> we can't do the zoning height -- >> commissioner: it would be going back and renoticing and having a whole -- it would be -- you have to tart -- start from scratch. >> commissioner: we'd have to reopen ceqa as well. >> commissioner: but it would help understand the process and would provide some -- >> and is the direction to study this notch out with a connection? >> commissioner: i think both of those options were proposed. >> thank you. >> commissioner: okay. very good. commissioners, the soonest i would recommend you continue this given your current advanced calendar is may 10, two months

out would be may 24. very good commissioners. on that motion to continue this matter to may 10 in order for the sponsor to consider alternative design solutions commissioner fong. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner? >> aye. >> the clerk: the motion passes 5-0. >> commissioner: we'll take a five-minute break. >> commissioner: welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing. i'll remind members of the public to please silence mobile devices. commissioners we took item 14 out of order we'll be on item 15

for 14. 2017-005992cua (j. horn: >> it's to demolish an existing residents at 160caseli in the rh2040 district. the proposal includes demolition of existing structures and the new construction of a three-story two-unit building at the front of the property. [stand by for captioner switch] .

>> the department recommends

this approval of the proposed project. this concludes staff presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. project sponsor, mr. barkley. >> members of the commission, my name is alice barkley. the project before you is recommend recommended before you for one reason, and that is because we are not legalize the illegal unit. i think this case is unusual in the fact that most illegal units are in an existing building that is built illegally, and they put an extra unit in that. but in this case, we have two buildings, both of them in the rear yard, totally in the rear yard, and the rear building, which is the illegal unit that the staff is diagnoasking to b

legalized is built without any building permits. and so in consultation with the department of building inspection, the project architect has been told that that illegal unit has to be totally demolished, and if the department or this commission want it to be rebuilt, they have to literally build a new building in the same square footage, but they will have to raise the ceiling height because there's a lot of problem, and the architect is here to answer questions about the illegality of that building and why it has to be demolished and completely redesigned. i think what's important in terms of this project is that there is -- as the staff indicated, they have no problem

recommending the single-family home in front, and yet, they're recommending denying the total project. second, i think when we look at this, i think we have true basic planning policy competing with each other. one of them is replacement of units that's going to be demolished, and the second one is a long-standing planning department policy of enhancing and preserving the rear yard, which the project will do. i think the third thing is when i'm looking at the public -- the housing policy, we're looking at what the two building -- existing building is like. it's dilapidated. the home is 1258 square foot, the studio unit is 441 square foot.

the new building, the three-bedroom unit which would occupy the owner is 225 square foot, and the second you know know -- unit is 866 square foot, so when you're looking at the ratio of the two current buildings and the proposed two buildings in proposed ratio square foot residence, they're pretty much equal, in that everything is 2:1. the studio unit is being replaced by something that's 866 square foot, and the home is 1258 -- it's going to be replaced by a unit that's 2502 square foot so that it's fairly

equitiable in terms that. i'm not going to go into design. if you have questions about that, you can ask the architect, but i think the important thing is that -- is that we're talking about a building in the back that was built without a permit that was going to be required by cdi to be totally demolished, and to be in the rear yard instead of the front part of the building, to me, if you look at the difference between enhancing the rear yard -- these are all the neighbors in green, are the neighbors who support dependenciy litigati demolition of the unit and enhance the construction of the

newhouse. this is the project site. it's getting late, so if you have any questions, i'll be happy to -- >> president hillis: all right, miss barkley. we'll take public comment, and if we have any questions -- unless -- the project sponsor submitted a card. do they want to speak? because now would be your time, during the five minutes. >> the project sponsor, and one of the other ones, karen lee, they had submitted a card, but they had been waiting until 2:00, and they had to leave, so she would like to submit something from them into the record. >> president hillis: okay. well her time to speak is now. >> commissioners, i wanted to represent norm mirowicz.

i support 160 caselli project. i own a home which is two doors from 160. whenever we walk into the back yard of 166, my wife and i joke, i wonder if the shack has fallen down yet? the shack has been a danger and an eye sore for the duration of the time we've owned our property. the new construction opens up the back yard and creates more housing. i don't understand the process of tearing down a shack, but i hope the planning commission approves, otherwise, we can end up with no project and a two bedroom house with a dangerous shack. another person, january medina who lives 4629 18th street, i waited two hours to say how much i would like this project to happen. we need open space in the rear yard.

i live on a property that has a building abutting my rear yard. i saw the plans. the proposed unit is almost twice the square footage as what now exists. it will be two bedrooms and make more sense for a family in our neighborhood, and we have another couple of letters that folks sent in support of our project. but i know my husband wanted to talk about our family situation and how this project would impact us. is that part of the five minutes or -- >> president hillis: a minute and 55 seconds, so yeah, now's the time. >> thank you. i'm ben wright, the owner of the property along with karen lee, my wife. we've lived in san francisco 20 years. we have two children, nine and 11 years old. we bought our home on caselli avenue two years ago. it's a home we admired for many

years, and we're happy to have gotten it. but the house is not functional for a family of four, which is why we're here today. first, the hall is small and cramped, where the upstairs bedrooms are. both my son's bedroom and our room do not have the required ceiling height, and the bathroom door frame is so low i have to duck every time i get in and out. i hit my head sometimes. the stairs are also steeper than code so that -- that it's kind of dangerous. my son actually slipped and fell down the stairs one. in addition, the front yard, which i have a picture here of -- there it is. front yard, as you can see from the photo, it's not conducive for a yard where children can play, that there's a different elevation between here and the walkway, over here, and the carport, which is here, and the walkway combined takes away

from a lot of the rear yard space, so they don't have room to do, you know, play activities and stuff like that. so this's opposed to what we're proposing here today, which would have a back yard, a lot more space for them to play. our street's not really safe where they can play, like the suburbs, and they can't go outside and play by themselves, so a back yard is essential for our son. looking long-term, the home is designed so that karen and i have the ability for our parents to live on the ground level when they need assistance in the future, instead of being in a nursing home. we would like for them to be near us during that period of time, and i'm an only child, so i'm solely responsible for my parents, so having that second unit as a resource would be very beneficial to our family. i'm thinking even longer term, that ground level unit could potentially be a place for

karen and me to live when we're at that age and maybe our kids would live above us. but in the immediate future, while our parents are still healthy, and they can live on their own, this would just be a rental unit. so that's pretty much all i had. thank you, commission members for your time and consideration on this project and supporting us on raising a family in san francisco. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item? >> commissioners, my name is michael buck. i live at 136 caselli, which is adjacent to the subject development site. during the 25 years that i have lived in the neighborhood, the previous owners used the illegal, the rear unit as a rental for long-term housing. there were several tenants who stayed multiple years in that building, and while that practice has not continued with the new owners, i understand

that's their right not to rent, they have taken advantage of short-te short-term rentals area which i believe would not be allowed under the existing conditions on that property. previously, i've sent you e-mails recognizing the commission's ability to either approve, deny, modify or what, and if you choose to go to approve the project, the cua, then i ask you to consider some of the modest proposals that i included for changing that. i have copies here if you don't have them. i don't need to reiterate if you've already seen them in your packet. the one thing that i noticed by sitting in the audience today is the commission's willingness to explore other options, most recently with the project on main down by beale. what i think's been overlooked in this process and its focus on the illegal unit is the resource that the cottage has, and i'm going to speak for the

cottage. the cottage may not be historic in the grant scheme d scheme o but it exists in our neighborhood. and i believe there exists to be a way to allow the affordable unit, two bedrooms, and allow for a unit at the front of the property, a single-family home. that has been done at 168 caselli under similar but not equal circumstances, and that has served its purpose quite well. this area is a of high interest to working class of caselli, and when that's gone, we lose something very special, so i'd like you to consider that suggestion that perhaps staff and the applicant can be directed to work together to come up with a solution that preserves that house and allows it to meet their needs, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> mr. president, honorable commissioners, my name is sidney gauge. my wife and i own and occupy 4637 18th street which is directly behind the subject property, so we share a property line at the rear of this parcel. i'll just show you a picture of what that looks like. a retaining wall, and the illegal structure with a window staring right over the fence into our back yard. we support the proposal to demolish those buildings, including the illegal structure and replace them with a new structure at the street level in line with his neighbors, and we have three reasons for supporting that. one is to get rid of the

illegal noncode compliant structure. second, to replace that with a back yard because all the other properties around it benefit from inner green spaces and gardens and back yards which would just enhance the urban green space for everybody's benefit, and we would like to see a family to be able to live and raise a family like we did, so thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any other public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: so just before i say what i was going to say, i was reading the historic research on this. it said the original owner had six children in that house, and i can't imagine that. i visited this yesterday, and i raised some concerns to him. i completely understand the situation the family's in. i asked him the question

before. he's been the neighborhood a long time, and he's got some children and needs to grow. i asked him about the lack of affordable housing, because you have a built before 1979 house, you have two rent controlled unit. the other is density. 2502 square feet, and 480 square foot, i wouldn't say they're as equitiable as they'd like to consider. we've got this issues, what should we do? the project as is, demolishing rent control units, i can't support. if there's any other way the project sponsor would consider mitigating it, i'd be open to that. >> the project sponsor is

willing, and i see that the city's attorney's office is here to enter into an agreement to put the second unit in the city's central housing slot. >> vice president richards: so the new structure. >> the -- are you talking about a new structure in the back or the -- >> vice president richards: to the -- >> the second unit? >> vice president richards: yeah. the project proposes a two structure building. is it under the costa hawkins agreement? >> except that the single-family home that we're replacing has always been an owner occupied, and it will continue to be owner occupied. it is only the -- it is only the illegal unit that was rented. >> president hillis: but they -- they may both be under rent control, because if the

illegal unit is under term, when it was completed, if it was pre1979, you've got a prerent control unit that both units are subject to rent control. >> i understand, but what i'm saying is that since the single-family home that is in the back has never been a rental unit, it has always been owner occupied. >> vice president richards: no, i guess maybe the city attorney can help me here. two structures, one lot. it's almost like they're two flats, one on top of each other. it doesn't matter whether they're touching or away from each other. from what i understand, the rent stablization arbitration ordinance is, one structure's built before 1979, the other's under rent control, as well, whether you consider them single-family homes or not. there's two units on the lot. >> no, but my understanding, and i think that the city

attorney can clarify, is that owner occupied units who have never been rented out is not part of -- is not subject to rent control if they continue to be so and occupied by another owner. >> vice president richards: yeah. you're getting a demolition permit, though, so there's going to be nothing left -- >> yeah, to replace the existing -- richa existing -- >> vice president richards: if you have new construction permit, you'll have -- [ inaudible ] >> no. what's bei what's we've got is an owner occupied unit that's been replaced -- >> vice president richards: i can't support that, i'm sorry. >> president hillis: so if the project sponsor's willing to enter into a costa hawkins

agreement, if that's the case -- >> okay. let me consult the owner. >> president hillis: okay. >> the response is as long as they can live it in, they do--y don't have to rent it out. >> vice president richards: the conversation i had with the owner, he said i want to live in it. i said that's fine, but in 50 years, if you want to sell it, and somebody wants to rent it out, it's subject to the whole stablization ordinance. if you want to rent it out, you've got some restrictions on it. same with the lower unit, obviously. >> i think the only question is if they moved out and their children occupied it to take care of them, that doesn't convert that into a rental unit, does it? >> vice president richards: they're both under the. >> president hillis: you don't have to rent it. they can be occupied by the owner under the rules of rent

control if you choose to rent them in the future. >> and if i may, mr. president and commission, i would recommend that we continue this while the city attorney takes a look at it. i'm not sure whether this property would qualify for a costa hawkins agreement, and i would need to research that before i could give you an opinion on the record here rich. >> vice president richards: okay. that makes sense. >> clerk: for the record, this item would have to be continued because you don't have an approval item in front of you. >> vice president richards: okay. i move to continue. how much time do you need? >> i can confer with my costa hawkins attempts in the next couple of days. >> vice president richards: okay. two weeks? >> why don't we make it a month, just to make sure. >> vice president richards: okay. >> any other questions? >> president hillis: so what was the date on the continuance? >> clerk: theoretically, we could continue this to april 12th. >> president hillis: was there a second? >> second.

>> clerk: on the motion then to continue this matter to april 12th -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary review calendar as item 16 has been continued indefinitely for item 17, case number 2016-00017 -- >> president hillis: sorry. >> i just consulted with my clients. they're not going to be here on the 12th, but if they don't need to be here -- >> president hillis: they don't have to be here unless they want to be here. all right. next item. [ agenda item read ]

>> clerk: the deputy director of current planning will explain to you why it's in front of you again. >> the item before you is a public initiated discretionary review of a building permit to construct a three story horizontal rear addition to an existing single-family dwelling and incorporating new accessory dwelling unit at 43 everson street -- >> president hillis: not to interrupt you, but i think the parties have agreed to settle this matter. >> great. >> president hillis: oh, you need five minutes? >> president hillis: why don't you explain to us what you've agreed to modify, and then, we've got to take public comment and potentially take a motion. >> sure. we're agreeing to pull in the

rear wall of the addition 4 feet at the first -- at the lowest level. >> president hillis: what about at the upper level? >> that stays as is. >> president hillis: thank you just show us on plan so we know what you're talking about? >> yes. >> president hillis: can we get the overhead, sfgtv?

>> you've got to speak into the mic. >> oh, sorry. so the agreement is to leave the upper -- this is the south wall of the building. >> president hillis: correct. >> this is the rear yard. the agreement is to leave this wall right where it is, but to bring in this lower wall by 4 feet. >> president hillis: okay. and that wall's approximately how high? it's not your typical first floor height. >> correct. it's a double height. >> president hillis: all right. so it's the outermost wall, bringing in 4 feet. >> correct. >> president hillis: is there any public comment on this beyond the project sponsor and d.r. requester. >> i just want to confirm we're

preserving the notch shown in the plan, so it's articulated on our side of the property, on our side of the wall. >> president hillis: it's already set back on a sidewall? >> that's correct. that's this right here, this is a notch. >> president hillis: can you show it in planning because it's not clear. >> sheet a-1.4 shows that notch. >> president hillis: so the notch presumably goes back more than 4 feet. >> you can have the overhead. it's this area here. we'll keep it -- it's essentially the project as approved previously. >> president hillis: right, with that rear wall set back 'cause the notch is only -- >> yeah. >> president hillis: all right. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commission commission commissioner koppel?

>> i make a motion to take d.c. and move the wall back. >> is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: thank you. to take the modification as modified, bringing in the wall 4 feet and preserving the notch. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> president hillis: all right. we are -- so ordered.