Have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Does any member of the public have any Public Comment on the items requested for continuance . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . Move to continue items one and two. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue the items as proposed. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Placing is under commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore . I read an interesting article in the journal speaking about demolition versus deconstruction in the city of palo alto. They have joined or taken the example from portland where the demolition of homes is not just simply a demolition anymore, but it is a systematic destruction of the structure to reuse, recycle, and alleviate excessive landfill due to demolition. This particular piece of legislation is going to affect how going to be in effect in palo alto in 2020 and affect commercial and residential buildings. It would be a very interesting thing for this city to look into and also consider. There are costs associated with it, but that is secondary to the benefit of what this program could achieve. I will hand it handed around for people to read. Thank you. I also wanted to say that while i was on vacation, my email got hacked. If you got an email from me asking you to purchase amazon cards or whatever, it wasnt from me and i apologize. If theres nothing further, we can move onto department matters. Item four, directors announcement. No new announcements today. Item five his review of past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals in the Historic Preservation commission. Are they not here . Okay. Yes, there is. The board of appeals did meet last night and take action on two items that maybe of interest to the commission. They held their election of officers, though they can never public replaced the previous president. They elected rick swig to the office of president and and lazarus to the office of vice president. They heard an appeal of determination and the issuance of the appeal is the appropriate fee methodology for the project. Last year, the mohcd and planning Work Together to modify the methodology for payment of the in lieu fee for the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and for a per unit fee to a person where for fee. This change became effective on january 1st of this year to implement this discreet change in a fair, consistent, and efficient manner. The city tied the methodology to the site permit issuance date, which is one these are assessed her project under the planning and building codes. The old methodology applies for sight permits. The project was originally authorized with onsite mac b. M. R. Units, whoever the project sponsor thought the letter of determination to allow them to pay the fee using the new methodology, which would have reduced their fee from approximately three by 4 million to 2. 1 million. The Zoning Administrator found the change would require Planning Commission approval and then old fee methodology would be required based upon the rules adopted by the city to implement this change. The board voted unanimously to uphold the Zoning Administrator s determination. The Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday and i think the one item that may be of interest to the commission was 770 wolsey. There was a petition from a Neighborhood Organization to add the 2acre site just below maclaren park. It was the old nurseries for flowers, i believe, way back in the day, to the landmark work program. The commission the Historic Preservation commission is down to five commissioners and their seats have yet to be replaced. Commission president hyland had to recuse himself. They were down to four commissioners and they needed a unanimous vote. A motion to not add it to the work Program Failed 31 and there was no alternate motion to continue or otherwise. So that application failed in front of the Historic Preservation commission. Hello. Sorry about that. You guys are moving fast today. I am the manager of legislative affairs. First in the Land Use Committee was supervisor mandelmans ordinance that proposes to modify the visible envelope for building seen our districts. You heard this item on april 11 th and recommended approval with modifications. As reported last week at the july 8th Land Use Committee hearing, he described the ordinance and proposed several amendments including two of the four modifications that you proposed. Supervisor passing also proposed amendments that would tie development of 80 used to entering into a cost hawkins agreement so that new development for the new development his because of the substantial of nature of the amendments, it was continued to this monday. At this hearing, Public Comment was in favor the amendment. The committee moved to submit the ordinance as amended with recommendations to the full board. Next, the Committee Heard supervisor mandelmans ordinance that proposes to increase the permissibility of arts activities and institutional use of public facilities, general entertainment, and other retail uses in the upper market. You heard this item on may 9th and recommended approval with modifications. Also reported last week, the Land Use Committee heard this and supervisor mandelman produced proposed eight amendments including the modifications you proposed because of this distant substantive nature of the amendments, the item was continue to this week. The committee moved to send the ordinance as amended with a favorable recommendation to the board. The Committee Soup considered another ordinance that proposes to limit the size and bedroom count of residential buildings in the oceanview, Merced Heights , in ingleside and neighborhoods by using Floor Area Ratio and conditional use authorization. You heard this ordinance on june 13th and recommended approval. At the land use hearing on monday, Public Comment was in full support of the ordinance, seeing it as a way to control be Building Size and illegal conversion of dwelling units into housing. During their deliberation, the supervisors were supportive of the ordinance. Supervisor peskin did ask about the implementation of the bedroom count limit. Staff indicated the enforcement planner would determine any violations of the bedroom count limit and that the if the air controls were established to incentivized increased density in those Zoning Districts. The committee then moved to recommend the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. The Committee Also considered supervisor haneys interim controls that would require conditional use authorization for a change of use from any nighttime entertainment used to another use in the south of market area. This item did not come to you as an interim control. Interim control was spurred by the potential loss of the mezzanine nightclub. During the hearing, most speakers were in favor of the proposed requirement and a few people, including the property owner, spoke against it. In the end, the committee voted to forward the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. It will become effective ten days after. Next, the committee considered the mayors ordinance that would abolish the north of market Affordable Housing fund and instead have the Affordable Housing fees deposited into the citywide Affordable Housing fund they collect the collected fees will still be earmarked to stabilize, rehabilitate, and retain Affordable Housing in the north of market residential std. His commission heard the item on june 13th and recommended approval with the modification to index the fee at 25. 41 per square foot. The fee will be included at the full board next week. There was no comment from the Committee Members and only one Public Comment or whose comments were not directly related to the ordinance. The committee voted to recommend approval. Finally, the Committee Heard supervisor browns ordinance that would allow intermittent activities like Farmers Market and are Zoning Districts if they are located on a parcel that contains a public facility. Such uses are allowed if they are located on a property with a hospital or post secondary educational institution. The Planning Commission heard this on june 20th and recommended approval. At the committee, there was no Public Comment and no discussion by the Committee Members. They recommended approval. Finally at the full board this week, the board heard an appeal of a tentative map approval for the project at 2146 union street this property is a mixed use building with a groundfloor retail and two dwelling units. The proposed project includes the addition of four new residential units at the rear of the building, interior renovations and facade modifications. The height of the building is increasing from about 38 or 39 feet to 40 feet, in addition to three stair penthouses that rise an additional 8 feet above the roof. You did not hear this item as it did not require a hearing and the d. R. Was not filed. The appellant was not included in the original neighborhood notice, since they were out of the radius. They were within the 300foot radius required for matt to notice. The appellant as i mentioned before, they were not close enough to be noticed. The second issue is that the proposal includes a substantial increase in the vertical height of the existing building. Since this appeal was over the condo subdivision, the appellant s issues were not relevant in the board was not in a position to do anything about the proposed project. Supervisor stephanie explained this during her comments and said he sympathized with the appellants issues and was looking at ways to address the noticing issue. She then moved to approve the map and deny the appeal. That is all i have for you today thank you. Seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general Public Comment. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I do have just the one speaker card. Come on up. Anyone else who wants to provide Public Comment, general Public Comment, come on up. Hello. Thank you. I went to the Building Inspection Commission yesterday and i urge them as i urge do all last week, to rewatch your april 12th, 2018 joint hearing and i will submit that again. It is a guide for what to watch. I also would like you to watch the general Public Comment from june 25th, 2015, and one of the things i talked about is this. May i have the overhead, please . It is not there. Well, the main thing is, what i said and oh,. You are out of luck here. There it is. I talked about that one and i talked about the problems of demolitions and alterations. There was a great discussion with mr. Sanchez and the Zoning Administrator. So anyway, here is that building as it was. I will show you a bunch of pictures. There it is in july 2015, here it is that is june. This is july 8th, 2015. Here it is a week later, july 19 th, ten days later. Here it is august 2015, here it is september 2015, here it is october 2015, here it is december 2015, here it is, and there is a copy. I will submit that because i have two. Here is another view of it in december 2015. Here it is in january 2016, here is in june, i guess i was away or lost track of it. And here it is february 2017. And here it is when it sold. It did sell, finally, it took a while to sell, because it had been two units, but they put the unit behind the garage, and i talked about that, it sold for 4. 5 million under an alteration permit that did not mention the fact they were changing the facade. I just wanted to bring that up because that was discussed back in june 25th, 2015, and i really encourage you to watch that hearing. Because a dialogue between commissioner richards and the Zoning Administrator sanchez was really interesting, and i will just leave it at that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker, please. Hello. Do you have all your photos you want to take back . I submitted that. Hello, commissioners. My name is kevin chang. In may, theres Public Comment and i discussed about the sample of the legal unit mergers. There are five samples, of which four of the five were fixit issues where basically it was catch and release through enforcement and they were allowed to correct their mistakes and proceed without discussion for the Planning Commissioner any public forum. The fifth one is one that may appear before you and i want to remind you a bit about it before giving an update. That is on 2028, 2040 street. It was decided by staff on aprin after a four month investigation finally in june 2018, it was decided there was a violation. The violations over decided were illegal unit merger, legal unit expansion to rear yard with a very, illegal to rear yard with variance, zero permitting to disguise scope of work. The property was originally purchased for 2. 9 million, two equal sized flats of a studio in law. Sold for 8. 5 million. Sold to one buyer before it was debated. There was no hearing originally required. It was determined there was a variance to correct the violations that would be required. They determined in january of this year that either a conditional use application was required, or it needed to be returned back to three units. Since then, it was given nine days for the project sponsor to respond. Since then, i believe it is going to go out for 311 and a variance application. There is no transparency in what went from a c. U. Requirement, to a 311 with a variance requirements. Given the matter is of concern to both the general plan and Public Policy, Public Policy being what should these type of violations be dealt with, how should the Commission Deal with it . Should staff determine it is a fixit cash and release, or should it be something that the Commission Ways in . Considering there in the sample size, theres a can settle number of these units that are legally unit merged. It should be heard from the Planning Commission. Why should it be left to the neighbors to d. R. Before being served by this body . I would encourage the Planning Commission to investigate and i look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you. Thank thank you. Next speaker, please. I am here today to let you know that we will be putting a measure on the march 2020 ballot to amend proposition m. And directly link how much office space is allowed every year under the prop and procedures to how much Affordable Housing the city is actually building, and meeting these standards, meeting the targets set by the Regional HousingNeeds Assessment goals. It will be determined by the state of california. There is no denying that we are in the fifth or sixth year of a boom that is fuelled primarily, or leading the boom by the office, the tech Office Development in San Francisco. There is no denying that we have not been keeping up with the demand for Affordable Housing. We have not been meeting the arena, which would be a goal of 2,000 units a year based on your report from a year ago where it was just at 68 production. It is now up to 100 20 of median income. There is no denying that the office, the government itself generates a significant demand for Affordable Housing, about 600 units a year under the 875 prop m. Cap. That number comes from your own departments. So the Planning Department and commission that we need would have asked itself a simple question, are we going too fast . Because the consequences of that shortfall are clearly devastating to communities, the displacement resulting in lower income, middle income residents of San Francisco. It is at a largescale. You should have been asking, i was simply going too fast . That is what a Planning Commission should have asked, but you dont. This commission and this department, and really, for most of my life, for 60 years, has essentially been addicted to growth. I know you talk about managing it, but in fact, it is the Development Approval commission. It is really not putting First Priority for the future of our communities. You would ask the question, if you did, are we going too fast, and we believe the answer is yes we are growing too fast. This mechanism will provide an adjustment that connects how much office space we build to how much Affordable Housing we actually provide. Do we meet the goals . If we do, then Office Development can continue at the current pace. But if it doesnt, and it hasnt been, it will be reduced. Thank you. Thank you. Next Public Comments, please. Sue hester. I have a handout which is and it would be better that i sent it to the Planning Commissioners in the Planning Commission secretary this morning on requesting that the hearing slated for next week for the academy of Art Institution master plan be continued until after the summer break. Hoops overhead, please. This notice of hearing was published the 3rd of july, the day before the 4th of july, and it set a hearing at the Planning Commission on july 25 th. The imp that was the subject of the Commission Hearing was available for the first time to people who happen to get on the posting when it was posted on friday, the fifth, and a lot of people were on vacation. The mailed notice came to those of us who got it on monday the eighth. This is the document that is 120 pages long. It is a matter that rose through a lot of information from the Planning Commissioners because the hearings on the academy of art have gone on for over 15 years. They had to be dragged in, kicking and screaming by the public, not the Planning Commission, by the public, and the people who did that work are on vacation. I got i didnt get an email, i got Text Messages back today from people that have been trying to reach as saying, where are you, there is a hearing coming up next week on the academy of art. People that have been here, religiously over the past four years. In portugal with their family, in london with their family, in somewhere in the mountains with their family. I am the only one here. No one else seems to notice that i was intimately involved. Because the only people that got notices were people that lived within 300 feet of a radius of one of the 43 facilities. And if you think keeping track of 43 facilities is a piece of cake, i have another thing to tell you. But no one i have talked to is available or aware of this hearing. I dont know if the Planning Commission has had the i. M. P. , i am just pleading for the real world reality. Dont have a hearing next week. Put a decision on the calendar for next week, which is continue it to sometime after your summer break, around the end of august or beginning of september. Thank you, and i have a statement for the record for jonas. Thank you. Thank you. Next Public Comment, please. Hello, nick roosevelt. Landuse council for the academy of arts. We respectfully request the commission keep the i. M. P. Hearing for the scheduled july 25th date. We have been in careful coordination with the Planning Department to make sure the noticing for the hearing was done in an appropriate manner and compliant with the planning code, and further i would emphasize that the hearing on the 25th regarding the i. M. P. , which is informational document that, represents an important procedural step of the developed agreement which are becoming before the Planning Commission later this fall at a subsequent public hearing. Thank you very much. Thank you. No other Public Comment . Public comment is now closed. Director . Thank you, commissioners. I wanted to weigh in on the last couple of comments since this issue has come up the last several days. Miss hester had originally raised whether a notice was appropriate. The Zoning Administrator took a very careful look at the noticing and we believe it was done appropriately. He received an email today which you may not have had a chance to read, from andrew perry outlining that. Miss hester request a continuance today for different reason. That is up to you. Just as a reminder, there has to be at least 90 days between your consideration of an institutional master plan and a hearing for any project within that plan. The hearing next week would allow you to consider the Development Agreement that we have been discussing with the academy, and i think october, that is three months. So any delay in the master plan would then delay your ability to actually consider the Development Agreement with the academy. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Ninety days is an unusually long period of time for these things, but i just wanted to make you aware of that as we move forward thank you. Thank you, director. If theres nothing further, we can move to your regular calendar for item six. Accessories accessory dwelling units in new construction planning code and business and tax regulation code amendments. Good afternoon, commissioners veronica florez, Planning Department staff. The item before you is proposed legislation regarding accessory dwelling units in new construction. This is a duplicate ordinance from an ordinance you heard back in march and this ordinance is proposed distinctly by supervisor peskin. The original ordinance focused on bringing the local a. D. U. Programs into client compliance with state law and allowing a. D. U. S in new construction buildings. The original ordinance appeared in front of you on march 7th and the Commission Recommended approval of the ordinance with staff modifications related to maximum size for no waiver a. D. U. S located within the proposed expansion of existing sickle family homes. Changes to Historic Preservation review for no waiver a. D. U. S, and also some clerical amendments. During the may 20th landuse hearing, there were supervisor and Public Comment concerns related to tenant protections and interest in the opportunity for more rentcontrolled units. The board filed the board file was duplicated, and the ordinance in front of you today focuses on changes tied to existing buildings as well as changes related to the discretionary approval process. On the overhead i have a list of the proposed amendments for this ordinance. For the waiver a. D. U. S specifically, the first change for relates to that all waiver a. D. U. S will be subject to rent control. This is a change where we will be able to impose rent control on building units and new construction buildings. It will also be able to impose rent control on units proposed in buildings built after 1979. The Second Amendment relates to requiring 311 neighborhood notification four a. D. U. S with a proposed minor expansion such as builds under cantilever decks. The third amendment requires 311 notification for seismic retrofitting projects where the project includes raising the building up to 3 feet. The last proposed amendment relates to know waiver a. D. U. S. So the proposal includes putting a cap on the size ratio for the proposed a. D. U. No waiver a. D. U. S and no new construction building must be no less than 50 cent of the primary residential unit 50 of the primary residential unit. We are recommending a few changes to help streamline the review. The first recommendation is to retain the 311 notification exemption or waiver a. D. U. S proposing minor additions. This exemption was enacted last year because these additions were deemed minor enough so as not to impact midblock open space or access to light and air the second recommendation is to retain the 311 neighborhood notification exemption for a. D. U. Projects undergoing seismic retrofitting. This is similar to the minor additions post described earlier where the soft story projects increases the opportunities for a. D. U. S, and additionally, his projects maybe more time sensitive because of the safety component of the project. The third recommendation is to eliminate the 30 day notice for no waiver a. D. U. S. This notice may affect the 120 day review period mandated by the mayoral executive directive. Additionally, this was the department into a difficult situation where it will be sending out notices, but the public cannot file a complaint formally with the Planning Department itself. And the last recommendation is to eliminate the Square Footage minimum or size ratio for no waiver a. D. U. S in proposed a new construction Single Family homes they are traditionally more affordable in nature as they are accessory to the existing residential units or the primary residential unit. There are a number of varying context to implement such a size ratio requirement. Under the state law, local jurisdictions can only implement minimum and maximum size requirements or size ratio requirements if the ordinance also permits at least an efficiency dwelling unit. If the board does board does enact a size ratio requirement, i also wanted to read into the record a proposed amendment to clarify that efficiency dwelling units permitted under the no Waiver Program are not subject to the cap. So the proposed amendment for a planning code section 207, subsection c. , six, b. , 13, at the very end of this section, to include the following, efficiency dwelling units the metre of the requirements of the subsection shall not be subject to the limitation on the total number of efficiency dwelling units with reduced Square Footage in section 318, subsection b. Of this code. And earlier today, the department did receive one Public Comment regarding the ordinance and i have a copy available for the commission secretary. The Department Recommends approval with modifications as discussed because this ordinance supports the housing elements goals to ensure adequate housing for our current and future san franciscans. Specifically the ordinance allows more opportunity to impose rent control on new units , a practice that is limited today based on current law. This concludes our presentation and im available to answer any questions. Thank you. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I have no speaker cards. Go ahead. Good afternoon, commissioners cory smith on behalf of the San Francisco action Housing Action coalition. Obviously the author of this has a history with a. D. U. S and is really well documented. We think it is a fantastic opportunity to find some naturally Affordable Homes that can be created. This conversation of new construction came out and we are also very excited. We just want to make sure that whatever we are doing that we dont just incentivize people from creating these homes and at times, the burdensome process in San Francisco can be complicated , it can be confusing in the past it has resulted in a bunch of a. D. U. S being built illegally, which we know has run rampant. I dont think this will happen as much a new construction, but whatever we can do to make sure that we are not inhibiting or stopping people in any way from adding these homes, because there are opportunities for people. We dont want to miss out on that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner johnson . Thank you. So this is an issue that we, at the Planning Commission, have grappled with when we see new construction. Just wanting to encourage density and encourage housing that is naturally affordable in the form of a. D. U. S. I am excited to see it. I appreciate staffs recommendations around the ordinance. I think we walk a delicate balance where we want to make sure that this housing is actually what it is intended to be, which is affordable and accessible, while at the same time, not making it so difficult for people to build a. D. U. S that they dont build them, and so i think that the staff recommendations and a good balance to it. I also just wanted to thank mr. Florez for adding racial and is florez for adding social and Racial Equity analysis. Im supportive of the proposal with staff recommendations. Thank you. Commissioner moore . There are a lot of very important and good steps in this particular legislation. I am sure we all agree on rent control. We have talked about that many, many times. I think the racial and social equity is just as important. It is high for me as rent control, but i am not personally quite sure as to whether or not i agree with not accepting the modifications proposed. Im not quite sure how i feel about that. Many of the homes that are in question are in neighborhoods where we have very, very densely built setting and i would like to create a little bit more ability to have the ability to look at it carefully in order to see fit. There will be impact, and it is not like everyone will jump on the barricades to file a d. R. , which is costly, but i do believe, as we often see, quite unusual things can happen, and i would like to prevent them from happening. My support stands with the ability to file adr. Commissioner fung . I am looking at the proposed legislation with respect to the intent of the a. D. U. Process. If you are looking at the per numbers, the amount of applications is notable. The amount of applications implemented is marginal. This proposed legislation to be used is contrary to the intent, and therefore i am supportive of the departments position to not support certain elements of the legislation as noted in the report. Yes . I also just want to elaborate a little further on the required 30 day notice for no waiver a. D. U. S. This was actually included as part of the previous ordinance and it will be effective july 28 th, and this has been reviewed by your staff and city attorneys office, and we have confirmed that this notice can be conducted ministerially, so under the state law, the no waiver a. D. U. S need to be reviewed ministerially, so that is why there is no opportunity for the discretionary review, but rather, the notice itself of the project. Thank you. Commissioner moore . Yes, im just following up to commissioner fungs comment. Comments. My suspicion is that the reason for a slow uptake on the a. D. U. Construction has more to do with cost than anything else. The amount of money it takes then the difficulty to find qualified people for this type of work is extremely complicated i see theres a correlation between high cost, labor availability, and the slow uptake of building a. D. U. S. That would be my first observation. Thank you. Commissioner fung . I forgot a question that i did have for staff. Legislation, is there discussion as to how they arrive at size limits, minimums and maximums . Under state law, there are some parameters, including the up to 1200 square foot for the a. D. U. , or no greater than 50 of the primary unit, and unfortunately i forget the greater than or less than clause of which of the two would it would bring, there are those thresholds, and then it is up to the local jurisdiction if we would want to impose those for our program. I understand there are thresholds, but do they state how they arrive at those thresholds . What is the nexus between those thresholds and reality . I dont have the information on hand, but i will invite our city attorneys to speak on the matter. Afternoon, commissioners. Deputy city attorney. Theres nothing in the state law explaining how they came up with those particular limitations. It may the in the legislative history and it is something we can research and present to the commission at a later time if you would like. Thank you. Thank you. I will say that i do support this legislation with staff recommendations. I hear you, commissioner moore, about the impinging on the d. R. Process. I think this does bring us into compliance with already existing state law, so i will be supporting this legislation. Commissioner johnson . I moved to approve with recommendation modification. I second. Commissioner moore . Would be possible to also also add comments that i am in support of it, except for that ratio . I would appreciate it if comments we are not determining what the end effect will be, but i would like to show the diversity of thoughts on this particular matter. Thank you. If theres nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt to approve this matter with staff modifications. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. That will places on item seven, for the special area Design Guidelines. This is an informational presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners , john francis with the Department Citywide planning division. The following is an informational presentation to introduce our effort to draft a set of special area Design Guidelines that would apply to commercially zoned properties in the vicinity of the special use district. For todays presentation, i will provide provide a brief overview of the official Design Guidelines. I will describe the steps are taken for so far to move the project forward, and describe our next steps to take and take your comments and questions. The Design Guidelines are typically articulated in a document that describes the general principles of Design Excellence and neighborhood compatibility. In other words, they articulate a set of goals, values, and physical qualities by which to evaluate new develop projects or remodelled buildings. The Design Guidelines help to explain to the public, project sponsors, city staff, in the Planning Commission how projects can best fit into existing neighborhood context. Finally, they are intended to promote constructive conversations in a community about design by creating a set of expectations that have been agreed upon ahead of time. Sorry for the technical problem. Sorry about that. In addition to these general intentions, the special area Design Guidelines are being specifically proposed to help preserve the districts unique physical characteristics as articulated in local architecture, art, and design, to recognize the latino Cultural Heritage and to foster his representation in a built environment, and to support existing city policy which i will discuss further in a few moments. The project sponsors and the designers should be used should use Design Guidelines as a guidepost when developing their projects. The Planning Department staff evaluates the projects compliance with them during project design review. Guidelines should provide a consistent system of review and evaluation that can be clearly understood by project sponsors and the public alike. One additional one additional review or interpretation is needed, the commission determines project conformity with Design Guidelines. As currently proposed, the special area Design Guidelines would apply to neighborhood, commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts as shown outlined in red on the map on the screen, which is roughly bounded by the special use district or su d. , which is shown in the black dotted line on the map. And a couple instances like on 22nd street and east of potrero avenue, staff feels the guidelines should cross the boundary to reflect existing Neighborhood Development patterns. I would emphasize that the guidelines would not apply to residentially zoned districts. Generally speaking, Design Guidelines are applied to new construction, exterior Building Renovations and address topics like site design and signage. Given the abundance of public art on and around 24th street, we anticipate the guidelines will also address this topic. We also want to be clear about the limitations of Design Guidelines and notes that they do not change height limits, his own land use, or address traffic circulation or parking standards the Design Guidelines that we are beginning to develop have their origins in prior city policy and legislation. In 2014, the board of supervisors passed a resolution establishing the latino cultural district, which recognize the unique cultural competent contributions of the Latino Community in the mission, particularly in the blocks out the 22nd street. This is followed by the creation of the 24 special use district which established a set of commercial controls that are intended to support the Economic Vitality of latino cultural districts. It specifically calls for the adoption of a set of Design Guidelines that would further support the policy goals and objectives articulated in the cultural district and in the area related to the preservation of neighborhood character and recognition of latino Cultural Heritage. I would also note that the intent behind the cultural district dovetails closely with the Mission Action plan 2020 which was endorsed by the commission in 2017. It is being and plummeted by the Planning Department in coordination with the community and other city agencies to address the challenges of displacement that have disproportionately impacted the mission, latino, and workingclass communities. The special area Design Guidelines are also intended to supplement the citys urban Design Guidelines adopted in 2018 by providing an additional layer of neighborhood specific Design Guidelines. The urban Design Guidelines would still apply here, but would be superseded where the special area Design Guidelines are more specific on any particular topic. At this point, i would like to introduce my colleague from the office of Economic Workforce Development who is working closely with the funding staff in this effort. She will discuss how it relates to oewds work in the district. Good afternoon, commissioners i am just here to briefly speak on the alignment with our Economic Development strategies for the latino cultural district over the past six years, neighborhoods have been investing in the area can i have the screen . Investing in programs and services that strengthen businesses, support the organizational capacity of the community, and pursue strategies and policies that strengthen and preserve the neighborhood, cultural, and unique identity. All of these efforts really support the Economic Development and the unique character of the area. The Design Guidelines is another tool that will help us both in form, discuss, and inform our investments and discuss with the community as these Small Businesses come into the area on what some of the priorities are in terms of maintaining and strengthening the character as they move into the neighborhood. This particular image here was actually one of our investment projects where we supported a grant to redo the facade improvement, and really recognizing and highlighting some of the unique characteristics of the neighborhood and that ended up translating into the facade. Thank you. The second half of the presentation will focus and what we have accomplished so far and highlight next steps for the project. Just to quickly introduce the city staff working on the project, i am the project manager and im joined by two of the Department Staff architects. Luis and trent. My small principal architect and lead of the Department City design group is a project supervisor. And we are noted rejoined from oewd. I want to highlight and recognize members of the special area Design Working Group who have been meeting with staff since late last year. They Serve Service advisors to us on this effort represent a Broad Spectrum of stakeholders from the community including residents, business owners, artists, service providers, nonprofit Housing Developers among others. They will continue to serve as a touchstone for city staff there out the Design Guidelines. To briefly describe our process so far, we have convened two working Group Meetings in late 2018 and early 2019, and held a Community Workshop last month that Cesar Chavez Elementary School in the mission. They have been extremely valuable opportunities for staff to hear from Community Members about their values and the Design Guidelines more specifically. Using some of the prompts you see on the screen, we have had free ranging smallgroup discussions with the working Group Members and Community Workshop attendees. We asked what are the aspects that that of the districts that are unique, what are the things that are most important to preserve, and how latino heritage and culture are in a built environments. As you can see, there is a list of attributes that make it so unique. It is quite long. It range from how arches integrate into Building Design and the huge inventory of vintage signage and small momandpop Retail Businesses that can only be found on 24th. The Community Members also expressed concerns about the loss or potential loss of these unique attributes. Just particularly salient to the guidelines, and a desire to ensure that buildings in the district are compatible with existent architectural styles and elements that have a long history in the district. In particular, i want to highlight a quote we heard from a young man at a Community Workshop a set of this effort, quote, this helps, but it is just a bandaid for addressing community displacement. Looked at in isolation, i will agree the Design Guidelines alone will not specifically push the needle on addressing displacement in the mission. However, in concert with a range of antidisplacement strategies that are being pursued through map 2020 and other city efforts, some of which deanna described, we believe that the special area Design Guidelines are one piece in the puzzle of addressing this challenge. Moving into the outreach strategy, i want to highlight that all of our outreach is bilingual in spanish and that our advertising for Community Meetings includes doortodoor canvassing of the nearly 200 businesses on 24th and 22nd street. Publishing of the announcement in the Spanish Language newspaper, extended to social media outreach, among others. Finally, before reviewing next steps, i wanted to note were approaching this work from the lens of racial and social equity and applying the departments newly drafted racial and social equity framework to guide us. The framework leads us to consider both the intended and unintended consequences and impacts of our work that our work has on these outcomes. How benefits and burdens are distributed in the community and how to best implement and track progress towards equity. The guidelines documented will address these considerations and provide guidance for measuring the equity impact of the guidelines as they are implemented, particularly focusing on their role in supporting other city policies and programs. We will begin drafting the guidelines this summer and continue through the fall. Once we have a draft, we will reconvene with a Community Working group to gather their feedback before taking the Draft Guidelines to a Second Community meeting around october. We are also working with latino cultural district to set up a satellite display of the Draft Guidelines of the 24th street offices for Community Members to stop by and review and comment on the Draft Guidelines at their leisure, and speak to staff during designated office hours. We will refine the Draft Guidelines at the end of the year and be back to you all hopefully in early 2020 for feedback and hopefully adoption. That concludes staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is mary sorensen, excuse me. We all started out in 1999 in erickson garage marshall art studio. It was a group of six people there got together. Eric knocked on my door, moved into the neighbor had couple years earlier. We are talking about starting a neighborhood group, our neighborhood as may be beginning in transition. So we started out meeting there, gradually grew a little bit, and then we started tackling issues. We got a park remodeled yet we have the flags backup of the countries. We have done community sweeps, we have done lease negotiations to help businesses stay. We are trying to fight for our trees. We are trying to prevent storm mergers argued we are doing all sorts of tough in the hopes of preserving our neighborhood and keeping the people in the neighborhood. We have had a lot of displacement in the last several years he had all we want is to make a mark and keep this hours area weve gone from people to a 5013 c. We are hellbent on preserving our neighborhood. Thank you. Work with us. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners area Peter Papadopoulos with the development agency. First i want to say, we are strongly support of these urban Design Guidelines. One of my colleagues has been participating in the work group. We appreciate all of the hard work from half on this area i know it an unknown a long process on this area i want to touch on that area as well which my understanding is sb330s would wing these guidelines. The state density which we will hear in the next case again. The thing we all have in common, while we have some very helpful side, they limit our ability to provide cultural ecosystem protection which is what were after here. I hope we are going to Work Together and keep that frame in mind, you make sure we are quick re re doing things area i appreciate everyones hard work on it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners get i live in the mission district. I want to voice my approval of these guidelines area its a long process, but it is a Community Driven process. Im very proud of the work. I hope to have your support and that as well. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners. Kelly hill, united save the mission. I participated in one of the groups at Cesar Chavez Elementary School. It was a great event. I want to thank the director, the department for all of the hard work to get it was great to see everyone give their input and see a very high attendance from planning half and the level of effort that they did. We will certainly be involved Going Forward to help protect this great neighborhood and possibly create legislation, and protection. Its very important, within the state, the whole country. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners area united save the mission. I wanted to say, we are thankful for the work of planning staff. Their outreach has been wonderful. We have attended Community Meetings. The community is very excited to have the potential for these guidelines in place. As you know there has been a long history of working to save the businesses that exist and support businesses coming in and support the businesses that are there. We hope you support these guidelines. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Couldnt hear a better outcome. Congratulations to all. I couldnt be happier to support this. Thank you. Thank you so much to the community and the staff for engaging