For continuance. Do any members of the public wish to provide Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . Thank you. Regarding 2 henry adams, we needed to kick it out a week to put last materials together. Youll see the cases from 2013. If theres any opportunity to get on the december 19 schedule, we would appreciate it. I just wanted to put a shutout for that. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . With that, Public Comment is closed. Motion to continue items 1a, 2 and 18a to the dates second. Thank you. On that motion to continue items as proposed. Commission fung is there any response to the request for the 19th versus for 2 henry adams . Jonas . Well, the only reason we chose january 9 is because december 19 is closed. We have a full calendar. Okay. Sorry. On that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote] that motions passes in a minute unanimously. Your consent calendar. All matters are considered to be retune and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff so requests, in which case the item will be considered as a separate item. Item 3, case 2019, 1401 first anniversary. I avenue. Motion to approve. Second. Very good. On the motion to approve item 3. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously. Commission matters, item 4, consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for the november 21, 2019 closed session and november session as corrected. Thank you, commissioner diamond. Your minutes reflect on the final d. R. On 19th street under discretionary review calendar item 27. Diamond Johnson Koppel and melgar. Richards, you were against. We will correct those. Commissioner moore. I have a comment. I was at the meeting of page five, second paragraph. Page 6, lower part. Third line from the bottom, the surprise there. Im not sure how to understand that sentence. So page six, third from the bottom . Yes. Ruining the surprise. We take these down verbatim from the audio. But well look into that. And then thats it. Okay. Does anyone have any Public Comment on the draft minutes . With that, Public Comment is now closed. Move to approve. Second. On that motion to adopt the minutes for the november 21 closed and regular session as corrected. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 70. Item 5, commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore . I would like to ask the commission to consider a discussion on the following. I see in gas stations where we have Small Service space which is like a tiny little local repair, that there are more and more being eliminated in making room to commercial component of retail expanding into sellingly core and alcohol selling liquor and alcohol. We are losing important labor space as we continue to eliminate gas stations, the ability to have a quick repair done at the gas station, including supporting Small Businesses is being lost. We had a discussion about that a few years ago when on the corner of california, for keeping the service bay. Women said we dont know anybody else. This is the person we trust with our small car repairs, and now we are seeing an erosion of that particular element in gas stations. I would like the commission to think about that. I would like us to fold that discussion into a broader look at service stations where they are located in serving the city as a whole. Thank you, commissioner richards. To commissioner moores point, i read a few times here about the lack of gas stations, they have to drive across island in manhattan to get gasrelated products. When we had the market octavia plan, somebody brought up the fact that all the corner gas stations are going to be turned into housing and i laughed at them like thats the whole point. And we started talking about a census of gas stations. At one point there were 100 and now theres 70. So maybe we could see the changing phos facetoface of how we fuel our car face of how we fuel our cars and look at creative ways like they have in japan and europe where you dont have to have a gas station. You can have a filling facility or a right on the curb pump so we can still have a good use of the land but also still, until carbonemitting cars are eliminated, be able to service, i think thats a great idea. It should be larger for the retail discussion that we have on our action item, the last big item that we havent really addressed yet. So just a question. I dont want to regurgitate. Theres an article in the paper yesterday, a law on housing, judge says san mateo can ignore californias statute. I read the article and got confused because theres rulings the charter cities dont have to follow it. Theres some challenges to s. B. 35 out there. I would love to have the City Attorney write us a memo on where everything stands, because we get people coming up here and saying im going to challenge you on x law or y law because you are going to cut ten feet off my bedroom. I would love to understand where all this litigation stands. Sure. Deputy City Attorney austin yang. We have issued several memos on housing accountability act. And we are tracking the san mateo case. Its at the trial court. And we will continue to track it. And we can keep you up to date. And the Huntington Beach case. Sure. Ill call you. Theres several out there. One other thing. In order to save time for the december 19 hearing, i canvassed a few commissioners and asked them if they received this memo dated december 10 from the director on the 4849 project. Its addressed to we Planning Commissioners. And nobody that i talked to said they received this. What i would like to do is hand this into mr. Ionin along with a set of questions i have so we can give them time to come answer the questions so we are not burning up time in the commission and to get this issue resolved on the 19th. Nobodys gotten this memo. I think you need to get it. Its addressed to you. And theres a lot of questions. So i would like you to distribute this for and also have him respond to that or bring answers to it. We are giving him two weeks. Thank you, commissioner. Anyone else . Okay. Seeing nothing further, we can move onto department matters. Directors announcements. Thank you. One item to talk to you about. It relates to a project that you heard of on the october 24th. At that hearing you heard an update of approved conditional use allowing a patio use for a restaurant on 458 grove street. It had been approved a year ago to operate until 10 p. M. At the hearing, the neighborhood filed a complaint and had concerns about the noise level. He filed a complaint with the department as well. We did go out and look at that. At the point we went out, we were unable to verify there was any violation. So as for context, you had heard this item immediately after the ocean avenue item. It was late in the day. And there was a little bit of staff wasnt clear about the direction that we were being given. So our intention at this point is to proceed with the complaint, do further enforcement analysis to see if there is a problem and get back to you to see if we find a problem. If you would like further hearing, we can do it at that time but our recommendation is to allow us to do more analysis to go out there in the evenings to see if theres a problem and get back to you then. So with that, i have no other announcements today. Thank you. Very good. If there are no questions, item 7, review of past events of the board of supervisors and board of appeals. There was no Historic PreservationCommission Hearing yesterday. There is no board of supervisor report. So there is a report from the zoning administerrer sanchez. The board of appeals did meet and considered three ims that may be of interest to the Planning Commission. Item 1, 610 delmar, they heard the denial of Building Permit for a deck at the hear as noted in past summaries the board continued this item several times to allow the parties to meet. The parties were not able to come to a resolution. In the d. R. Action they based their denial on a previous private agreement for a similar proposal. The board voted unanimously to overturn the denial and approve the project, noting the staff d. R. Analysis found the project to be compliant with guidelines. The board noted the city doesnt enforce private agreements since the Planning Commissions decision lacked any other base. Item 2, 22nd street, the board heard the appeal of d. B. I. s revocation of nine Building Permits. The board found the project sponsor violated building and planning codes by providing inaccurate plans and exceeding the work of scope on the permits, including work that will require a variance to legalize. The board also questions whether the permit should have been suspended rather than revoked. They continued the item to allow them to work with d. B. I. To provide complete plans and establish a path forward. Item 3, annual report, lastly, the board heard and adopted their annual report and the department will forward the final version of the report to the commission when it becomes available. Seeing no questions, we can move onto general Public Comment. At this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. I have two speaker cards. Thank you. Christy evans and georgia. Anyone else who wishes to come up and provide general Public Comment, you may do so now. Hi. My name is cricetinae vans. Im the president of the haightashbury Merchants Association. Im here to call your attention to 1672 haiti street. Haight street. You can see a headline that appeared that a new business is planning to open in the former record store location. Normally this would be an on occasion for celebration that a new business arrived. However it appears this is a formula retail. The website for the company, it appears they have approximately 30 locations. We have reported this to the Small Business department and have been in contact with planning and has been responsive to our emails so far this week. We wanted to make sure that we had clarity on how the city is going to approach this particular situation. The board of the Merchants Association met at our regularlyscheduled monthly meeting this morning. And they took a position that generally, we are in support of businesses coming into the street that has a number of vacancies. However, in this circumstance, i believe it is also the building owner. So there was a vacancy in that location, nor was there need for them to close suddenly. But rather it appears that landlord has made a deal with a formula retailer and perhaps there is some confusion about what the compliance is in this particular case. And just to call your attention, there is another formula retailer with a very similar Business Model of secondhand clothing, a block away, that is going through the conditional use process at 1560. So the Merchant Association would like to hear more about what the city plans to do in this particular situation and circumstance and what it can do. Its also really unfortunate situation because we understand that employees have been hired and the business is set to open this week. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Ive been talking recently, if i can again, about a project for the kitchens or inefficient use of space. And it sounds weird but youll get it in a minute. Can i have the overhead, please . This is a picture of a restaurant, the kitchen in the restaurant. But heres the picture of a kitchen in a spec project house. To me they look very similar. Here is the original plan of this house. It was an alteration, extreme alteration. And oh, sorry. Theres the original kitchen there. See that little space. With bedrooms around it. And now here it is here, all this space. And then it was blown upside down stairs and down stairs. Why is this important beyond the size . Well, theres a trend of cloud kitchens. And there was an article. I heard this from merchants. There was an article in the wall street journal on the eighth of november. And the uber guy is involved with it. And lo and behold, a few days later i get in the mail, thank you, a cloud kitchen on charter oak street thats undergoing environmental review, so it is happening, it is real. Going back to the kitchen in that project, which i think should have been a demolition, here is the project as it was. Thats next i cant talk about it now but some time i will. Here is the project going through the work. Here it is again. And i have photos of real demolitions. But ive forgot them. Im sorry. I want you to look at that part there. And imagine that the new construction is not around it. Photos of real demolitions, legal demolitions showpieces of wood like that before they are gone. But in this one, the piece stays. So it can work with the demo calculations. And in fact, this project did have some issues with the demo calculations because the staff had to write twice to get demo calcs. The other thing about this project was that the entitlement was sold at least twice. So now its on the market. Here it is all done. For 4. 3 million. So thats all. I just want to say that. I probably have Something Else to say but i forgot. Its six years ive been talking about. Hello, commissioner diamond, welcome, good luck to you. Six years in january, 2020, i started january 2014. So thats all. And i do think the kitchen thing is really interesting, because youve heard people come here, you heard people come here and say nobody cooks anymore. So we have to have places to get food. I mean, some people may cook but you certainly dont need such a large kitchen in this square footage. It can be more efficiently done. So thank you very much. Have a great day. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Good afternoon, commissioners. San francisco housing coalition. Im ecstatic to see a full Planning Commission for what feels like the first time in a long time. I wanted to comment if anybody saw the United Nations climate report that came out last week. A number of really interesting things. In it, perhaps not shocking to you, one of the things we noticed was a common thing on how updating apartments really does lead to negative environmental impacts and just reading from the published report in some locations, the planning prevents construction of multifamily residents at high social and environmental cost. We all know that urban density is one of the things we can be doing to reduce our carbon footprint. Cars are the number one contributor to total pollution in california. One of the many ways we can mitigate is putting jobs next to housing and connect it with high quality transit. It is not something easy or simple but its something we need to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other general Public Comment . Okay. General Public Comment is closed. Very good. That will place us under your regular calendar for item 8. 2019014348pca exemption from density limits for affordable and unauthorized units, board file no. 190757, planning Code Amendment to provide an exception from density limit calculations for good afternoon, commissioners. Kyle, aid for supervisor raphael mandell raphael. Im here to speak to give a pathway for legalization for existing units and permit care facilities of seven or more people in hr1 and hr2 districts. Ill start with the density control for affordable units. The planning code applies limitations on the density of dwelling units. There is an existing provision that exempts affordable units from the calculation of density limits in projects where 20 percent or more of the onsite units are affordable, so long as the project is not in an hr1 or 2 zoning district, it is not seeking a density bonus under other sections of the code, and the units meet the other requirements of the code. This legislation extends to all onsite affordable units from the calculation of density limits so long as the project is not seeking a state density bonus and meets other requirements of the code. This change will promote more Infill Development of Affordable Housing and removes limitations on the fordable housing Affordable Housing. This may pose complications but offers two recommendations that we plan to incorporate. The first is to exempt only voluntary affordable units from density limits. The second is to exempt 100 percent affordable projects from density limits. I believe staff will elaborate on these recommendations. I want to clarify our office does plan to incorporate both as we move forward. Next, ill turn to existing unauthorized units. In 2014, legislation was passed to offer unauthorized residential units a path to legalization and in 2016, another law was passed that sought to protect these units from demolition, merger and conversion by requiring approval under section 317 to remove them. These legislative efforts resulted in two effects which we believe should be addressed and changed and which we seek to do with this legislation. The first is in the current pathway to legalization, Property Owners can only legalize one unit per lot so if there are two or five unauthorized units, they can only authorize one. It is our position the the the y should be encouraging legalization of as many of these units as possible. In the legislation, we removed the one per lot restriction and permit the legalization of all unauthorized dwelling units. The second provision is currently units with a history of no fault evictions cannot be legalized. This was originally intended as a disincentive for landlords to evict tenants and increase rent. But this has been used as a loophole for Property Owners who wish to remove the unit, evict the tenant and remove the unit. If the goal is to protect tenants, this code section as currently written no longer serves that goal as staff points out. By removing the prohibition and adopting recommendation 3 which is to clarify that price control and that they are allowed the right to return in unauthorized units, we believe these additions will strengthen protections for tenants in unauthorized units by removing the incentive to remove a unit without approval. In closing, i want to thank little city for his help in crafting this legislation, the planning staff for engaging with this effort and making recommendations we believe will significantly improve the ordinance, to judy from the City Attorneys office for her guidance and to the commissioners for your time and attention. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, again, commissioners. Planning department staff. He summarized a lot of what this ordinance will do so i wont go into it again but im happy to answer any questions or go into more specifics just to restate the recommended modifications, the first is to further amend section 207c, the state that mandatory inclusionary units may not be exempted from the Density Calculation and clarify that all voluntary affordable units provided through this program will not be included in calculations for determining your requirement of a project. The second recommended modification is to add a subsection to section 207c that would state 100 percent affordable projects do not have a density maximum. And our third recommended modification is to add clarifying language to the administrative code regarding eviction protections for evicted tenants of unauthorized dwelling units. We did receive one additional Public Comment since the publishing of your packets, which i believe was emailed to you this morning but i have a copy here as well. The Planning Department supports the proposed ordinance with recommended modifications to section 207c and the code because it expands the ability to build Affordable Housing in lowdensity districts, closes loopholes in the program and increases the ability to build and legalize more a. D. U. S. In addition to us, we have people from our department to answer any of the more technical questions you may have. Thanks. Thank you. Do we have im sorry. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Thank you, commissioners. Executive director at livable city. Welcome, commissioner diamond. Good to see the rest of you as well. We are here to support this ordinance. Its near and dear to our heart. One is Affordable Housing incentives. This will open the door to Small Projects in every neighborhood in San Francisco. The current density bonus home sf doesnt apply in rh1 and 2 so this would allow projects to be built without an arbitrary density limit around their affordable units. One problem we have with the staff recommendation about exempting required units is we think if you allow the required units to require inclusionary to not count against the density limit, it might be an incentive to do onsite inclusionary, which we are always happy to see. We dont know if people will do it but why not allow it . If your staff are right and they dont do it, no harm, no foul. If they are wrong and people do it, youll get not only a few more market rate units but youll begin to see affordable units in neighborhoods and mixed income projects we wouldnt otherwise see. We would ask you to consider looking at exempting Residential Care from limits. A lot of Zoning Districts like nc1, you are only allowed one s. A. R. Residential care, even though it is residential is considered a nonresidential use for the planning code so limits would apply. If you dont list the limits, we are not going to see these Residential Care projects in every neighborhood like we like to see. So we would like you consider that as well. I think that would be a great way to help expedite these. Lastly, on the unauthorized units, weve been a big champion of these. Theres an estimate of 20 to 50,000. If you knew how many you would have to remove them. They exist in the city but they are an important housing resource. Most are rent controlled. A lot of our most vulnerable renters live in these units. We have two objectives around this. One is retain as many units as we can, protect them from merger, from demolition and conversion. The other is protect tenants rights as best we can. We think we recommended both of those things. Every unit will have a broad path to legalization. So if you can feasibly legalize, you will be allowed under the planning code to legalize it. Thats the first thing. The other thing is by removing these loopholes, the areas that dont allow you to approve the merger under section 317, so thats the no fault evictions and the more than one unit, you then as a commissioner will have to approve every unit removal, every unit merger, et cetera. That gives you the ability to say dont remove that unit or replace it in kind. You cant do that now, this will allow you to do that. So we urge your support and ask you to consider those two things. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Germy shabli. I support trying to legalize as many units across the city as possible. Just to bring everything into compliance for life safety, of course the bigger policy goals of preserving rentcontrolled units and the more affordable units. They are in the shadows now, and we want to bring them out. One other issue is the Residential Care facilities. Ive been before you with one, and im going to be in front of you with another project in a couple months. Its important that we have more of these as our population is aging, and especially allowing for smaller ones in our neighborhoods. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. On behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. Similar comments to the previous two speaks, very much in support. And with the residential childcare units, thats continuously coming up and does seem to be a potential sweet spot where we can do a lot of effective things, because there seems to be broad consensus on a desire to increase the total number of these types across the city. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comments on this item . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. Number of questions. In terms of some of the planning standards that occur with respect to unauthorized units such as the rear yard exposure, are those going to be suspended . Suspended is a im not quite sure i understand your question. Will there be waivers to use now that nothing is changing in terms of the standards for legalization, other than the fact that more than one u. D. U. May be legalized per lot. So if a u. D. U. Doesnt meet the Building Code standards, for instance, whether that u. D. U. Is first to try to be legalized on whether it is the fourth, its not going to be able this law will not make a difference. So all planning standards and Building Code standards remain in place . Correct. This is simply an amendment to the number that are eligible. Especially related to nonhabitable units. Absolutely commissioner koppel. Thanks to the planning staff involved, thanks to supervisors office, also tom, very supportive. I make a motion to approve. With that modification. Commissioner moore would you, perhaps come up for a moment and explain the position on density exceptions on dwelling units that have had no fault evictions and why they should be legalized. I did not speak to that but i would like to hear your thought on that. Sure. So we cant prevent the no fault evictions. We cant prevent owner movein evictions. But under current code, if you have the intention to demolish the units, you can make a run around with section 317 process, the hearing at the commission where you would have to approve that demolition or merger by having the bad eviction. So what we are doing by closing that loophole, even if you have done, like you cant use no fault eviction as a way to merge units without Planning Commission approval. You would still need to approve that merger. You would still need to approve that demolition. So we think this will curtail the speculative evictions that hatch because people want to demolish a building or merge it and create a mansion out of units. Because you wont be able to get around that. So they could still evict the tenants. But they would still have to rent controlled units in the building, and you could prevent them from merging them. That cant happen now, because you are only allowed by section 317 to require them to retain units if theres a path to legalization. If it is feasible, both on the structurally but on the planning code side to legalize and both the prohibition on more than one unit and the no fault evictions in many cases would prevent you from saying you have to either replace the unit in kind or preserve it. Does that answer your question . Its a little bit hard to understand and follow what you are saying. I appreciate you explaining. Commissioner diamond i have a question for staff. Could you comment on the suggestion that we remove the f. A. R. Limit on the Residential Care facilities for the elderly . Thats not art of this or not part of this ordinance. Commissioner moore. It was in a residential area, it would require lot mergers if the building is larger than one lot. Normally when you have a building converted to Residential Care you are taking a large residential building, instead of a Family Living there, you add daptto smaller rooms for larger numbers of people. That is not inconsequential. The only time when you have an increase is building a larger building than what is currently allowed by code given residential use, that is the only difference. That is true. If you had a building that was somehow larger than they would allow, but i dont know the far because we dont use it. Say you had a mansion to convert to Residential Care facility, but that large home was over the far for an institutional use, then it wouldnt be allowed to be in that building. That is not part of the legislation. Did you have a question, commissioner . The far only applies to the one side, right . There is no far requirement. There is an far requirement in the districts but not apply to residential uses. This commission changed that for the district. There is an far now. I dont remember that. That could be true. You know, schools, hospitals, Residential Care facilities, those are all nonresidential uses in the districts. We have an far for those uses. I have a question about this legislation. At a prior hearing i brought up the issue of the tenant protection for unauthorized dwelling units. I understand the argument that he made and you made earlier to me. I am wondering if you could take us through what the enforcement mechanism is of the five year price controls and, you know, sort of how we could better understand that, you know, we are not putting people at risk by doing this. My understanding the five year price controls were part of the supervisors 2. 0. I have been in touch with the City Attorneys office to understand the mechanics of this, and they have informed me as the code is currently written, those protections would apply to any evictions in unauthorized units. The exact mechanisms of how that is enforced, i cant speak to. As currently written those protections would apply. I can get back to you or perhaps ask the City Attorney to elaborate on that. Deputy City Attorney. I am not familiar with the rent ordinance, and i cant speak to how that would get enforced. We can follow up with you. It would be the rent board . That is my understanding. Tenants would have the recourse to go to the rent board if the rents are reset at a price that is higher . Does that also, you know, apply to the right of return . That is my understanding. In event of capital eviction tenant would have the right to return before the rent board. I will second your motion, commissioner. Seeing nothing further. There is a motion seconded to approve this amendment with modifications. Commissioner diamond. roll call . So moved. That passes na passes unanimous. Item 9. The 2018017235cwp retained elements special topic be sign guidelines. This is for your adoption. Good afternoon, commissioners. Small Planning Department staff. We are here today to bring forward the retained elements special topic Design Guidelines for adoption. I will describe what retained elements are and the purpose of these guidelines, the history how we came to this point and discuss in detail what they do or could do. Retained elements is a specific term that we began to develop around the possibility of keeping parts of sites or buildings that could be maintained in new development. It could be part of renovation or something that is an element that is incorporated into a new project. This has come out of pay lot of conversation, particularly, around how existing fabric serves the public and is part of the nature how we see the city of San Francisco and i was. This is within the general plan under the urban design element. It notes that not only Historic Buildings but older buildings regardless of historic affiliations provide richness of character unlikely to be repeated in new developments. They help characterize the neighborhoods and establish focal points that contribute to the city pattern. It is broader than facade. It can speak to different buildings that are either visual and something people notice in the neighborhood, part of the fabric. The facades could be signs or murals to help us understand how our neighborhood is right now and works. A lot of these projects have come up, how retension works now is complex. We have parts of buildings maintained in new projects, some find them successful and some not successful. These are around design and architecture, very detailed and take professional expertise. There hasnt been a lot of agreement. Many cases how successful they have been. This is a way to help us understand and have a conversation and focus on the areas of expertise and get the best outcomes that we possibly can. This conversation has come forward primarily through the Historic Preservation commission. Discussion around the faux saws and this is going back to 2015. The discussion of the retention related to the Historic Properties and how it had been coming out in the city and the sort of product that had been arriving through this process. In 2016, further discussion of examples. In 2017 reviewing draft policy staff had begun to develop. What was interesting was the shift in thinking from this as preservation. There is conversation if these were preservation projects. At that point the commission directed staff to begin describing this as a Design Review process rather than preservation. This is complex within the Preservation Community. Early this year we presented a new take on this which was much more around Design Review. There was a joint Commission Hearing between planning and Historic Preservation to discuss how it might work and direct projects in the future. This came out of preservation conversation and into Design Review. That is when you saw it last. We then have continued to revise the guidelines from what you saw then. We worked with San Francisco heritage and returned to the pressservation commission in early november to continue feedback from them and advice on how to make sure this was the best document it could be. We are here to seek adoption today. We will have one of the handouts attachment b was intended to go last week giving you feedback from the Historic Preservation commission. President highland will give that in person. The retained elements special topic Design Guidelines. Direct existing Building Elements. Application are not achieve conformance with the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of Historic Properties. These do not if they would be in rare cases applied to alternatives within the e. I. R. Process they would not achieve performance with the secretary of interior standards this is intended not for Historic Properties. It is around increasing the options and opportunities to keep existing fabric and future development and to be part of the Community Conversation around the best public use of sites. It does not change or reduce the process. These guidelines do not change Decision Making around demolition or rehabilitation of historic resource. All of that is maintained. The guideline applicability is different than other guidelines that apply given specific zoning or use. These are guidelines to be used voluntarily. Applicants could choose to use them. In the process we would direct them to the guidelines to do the things they want to do with retained elements. They also could be directed through planning or Historic Preservation commission process to be required to use them. They are discretionary for project approval. Note this would not be available for Properties Identified as city landmarks or districts under article 10 or significant be buildings in the categories listed 1 through 4 under article 11 of the planning code. Planning staff could remember they use these Design Guidelines on behalf of the commission recommending that would be the best and most beneficial way forward, but it would be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Within this process we have also used the racial and social equity assessment to make sure we are looking at the Design Guidelines and understand the potential impacts and outcomes intended and unintended burdens might be. Within the Preservation Community there is a broadening effort to broaden cultural expression, creative viewpoints and Decision Making around things within the development process. Many of these have been processes where people of color and women have been underrepresented. This adds to the tools developed within those professions to make sure we get a diversity of view viewpoints. Who is represented and how the design qualities are represented. This is to expand retention of the Design Practice. I think this has been more preservation conversation in the past and this encourages it as larger Design Practice to encourage products of port neighborhood identity. Who will benefit or be burdened . There is some potential increased housing costs to burden tenants or owners because sometimes keeping existing elements can cost more in construction. The potential mitigation is to look for ways to reduce costs, review benefits and balance and adapt to accommodate feasibility. There may be limitations on Design Flexibility and to adapt to the needs without diminishing integrity. The application is discretionary and is to help support equitable site outcomes. This makes the conversation of the benefits and burdens more public. Within the Design Guidelines there is a description of weighing the options. How to decide when it is appropriate to keep parts of buildings. This is something that happened in the Design Review conversation for a long time. There are four major questions that come up under this topic. The first is determined visual contributions of existing structure. How is it that it is perceived from the outside, what character and qualities does it promote in the neighborhood . It is important to evaluate the existing structure for feasible integration. Some projects work better than others, some are impossible or not in good shape to be able to put into new development in any feasible way. It is important to determine the ideas found within the existing architecture. If you keep part of the building is it fundamental . Is it meaningful . You know if you are looking at an existing structure and the proposal does not retain the element, often we have this conversation in Design Review to evaluate replacement. The structure replacing what is removed, is it better . Does it meet same standards . Does it replace it in a more meaningful way . The Design Guidelines under retained elements, currently there are seven. They are both in the site design and architect tour categories. They work with the urban Design Guidelines in place for the sites. They parallel with the urban Design Guidelines in terms of topic and specifics. We have s1. 1 existing features. 2. 1 establishing new mass. 2. 1 modulating to support. 2. 2 articulating clear relationship between new and retained. 3. 1 harmonizing with pretained elements. 6. 1. Restoring and highlighting existing features and 8. 1 animating ground floor elements. Examples how these work. They are technical guidelines that get into detail how architecture is made. There are examples that start to describe how to handlize the site before beginning an approach that suffice is guidelines. The features that define the neighborhood. This is trying to understand how those features are understood from that point of view both visually and in some cases aspects of things that are used and afaffiliations where people are gathering and they have a relationship with the public relmany. Realm. This is challenging. How do you see how new development and old development, how that fabric comes together, to be separated, distinguishable, this is obviously part of a conversation to make sure what is added is not confused with what is there. There is a description of what is a hyphen or something to separate the parts to make them distinguish from one another. Then a 3. 1. Harmonizing with retained elements. There are similar qualities between what is kept and what is new, but there are distinguishing features because we build buildings differently. There are many qualities of construction that is different. Things cost differently than when originally built. There is a desire for a lot of things that Work Together very obviously, color, material, texture. Contrast is more appropriate. There are different methods that express why one might be more appropriate. This would be evaluated sidebyside. The last one so i am giving a more direct description is really restoring and highlighting existing features. Much like you would hope with something maintained. It is for a very specific purpose. Therefore, we want to make sure it has the best expression of what it possibly could, which is to actually open up openings closed in to revive the qualities it used to have and make sure it is seen in the best light, that the character is ideal. President highland is here to communicate what happened at the last Historic Preservation hearing on this topic. Welcome. Good afternoon. I am here to kind of let you know how important this is one of the very important items that have been before us for years. I am here to answer the questions that our memo would not have been otherwise able to answer. If there is any other dialogue or questions, i am here for you. This started long before 2015. This is the immediate start of the retention policy in 2015 that came out of our commissions desire and need to see more in the draft e. I. R. Alternatives. Until several years before that all we were seeing were block diagrams, and we asked for more information from the project sponsors. As we got more information, we realize these retained elements were being kept but not in any meaningful way. We were seeing things that were challenging. It was more complicated because these were not preservation projects. They were demolitions before the Historic Preservation commission because of the draft dir process and the question of our purview in that process and how our comments got relayed to your commission became a problem. We had a joint hearing to talk about that, and this policy evolved from that conversation. Our goal as the Historic Preservation commission is to make sure when the retained elements are retained it is done in a meaningful way so it is not an afterthought, not ignored. It is part of the design criteria that the project sponsor hopefully will incorporate into the fuller design. Because they are not preservation projects, this policy is going to be in your purview. We will continue to be reviewing these projects during the draft e. I. R. , but, ultimate the Design Review process will be in your hands. We will continue to help communicate, convey our concerns with these projects, but we want you to know that we want to continue the dialogue. I want to end with a reminder that we have an Architectural Review Committee for the Historic Preservation commission, and you can suggest any of your projects go before us for further Design Review to take advantage of the Technical Expertise that our committee has that you may not have. I am here to answer any questions. Thank you. We appreciate you. In summation, we are bringing forward a resolution to adopt the special topic Design Guidelines to be applied for projects that propose retention of existing Building Elements and new development. I am here to answer