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 questions and we have additional staff here if needed. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I dont have any speaker cards. Okay. With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards. I missed the first part of the presentation, are these only for a rated structures under sequa . Ceqa . We are thinking these would apply to nonHistoric Resources. They would not apply to article 10 or 11. They could apply to individual resources that are a rated resources, but they would not meet the secretary of the interior standards. We would see them as causing an impact. I think where i am going is i would have loved to have this on 450 farrell when we did the e. I. R. And it would be the facade alternative. When we looked at the mitigation and all of that, we had some liver age with the developer leverage with the developer. This is really, really good. I seen it applying to some arated structures. I am happy to see it. The question i have is if it is a Housing Project and we ask for this, will it trip up any state laws . I mean if we are going through the normal review and it would come here. I think the main one would be if it was sd330, we are limited to public hearings. If you are talking to restrictions on development potential, that would also maybe depending on those, yes, what we would do is the retained elements are done. We cant lose housing. I think what we are talking about state density bonus projects or housing accountability acts. The state density bonus they would have to justify it costs more, there is an impact that affects the ability to do the housing. A lot of the pieces we are talking about retaining are relatively small. We have been where a number of projects these might apply to internally now and looking at those and making sure that whatever the alternatives rv the same number of housing units. We are trying to make sure the number of units are the same. Under 330 the guidelines will be adopted before january 1, they wont apply to additional cost to the building. We are bringing them to you for a reason. We appreciate that. Commissioner fung. Questions for staff. Why are complete New Buildings included here . Could you repeat that . Why are complete New Buildings included here . You mean as examples . You have it listed under guideline structure. If a new building is proposed in lieu of retention, evaluating replacement, why is that there . That is in the introduction portion of the Design Guidelines. Often times the project would come forward where we might evaluate it. This happened recently. We looked at something, the storefront or some aspect of the project is interesting on the existing structure. It is a project not including that. There is assumption everything would be demolished. That is a possibility to keep the fabric. Even though the guidelines are discretionary. You consider the possibilities and if you would consider it too be retained. Why would we keep it or not keep it. We do want to ask those questions. That led to my next question. How does one appeal this if it is a preliminary process in the early design works for a project, it doesnt come to the commission. If there is a disagreement with that specific staff member . What if there are cultural differences that that staff member does not recognize . Those are the challenges the Design Review staff and the process in preparing the project for commission we face in a lot of other ways fairly frequently. We are trying to prepare the project in anticipation of Planning Commission review so we have policies that help direct us on that. That is why we wanted the guidelines a set of policies approved with this in the introduction to help guide staff in determining whether or not this what is the appropriate thing to recommend. If the applicant did not agree if it is related to the demolition of Historic Resource it goes through h. P. C. And alternatives review. They get early feedback now that that process has changed. For planning for projects not related to that, it is just as complex as how we prepare projects. There may be an informational on something particularly big or challenging. That could come before you to get your early guidance. An information has no actional item to it. If it is a list of comments, it doesnt always become an action item. These are discretionary, not mandated. It is when these might come into play when a piece of building or mural, we might think it is a good idea. These come into play. These arent code requirements. I understand, director, however, the vast majority of people coming in for projects will attempt to get the current with the planner they are working with. There are instances where there is disagreement and that doesnt get them very far. How does that get adjudicated . There is no formal process. That is part of the Design Review that we negotiate. That is the indicate for many, many years. Commissioner moore. Thank you for tackling an extremely complex subject matter. This is a big question. I would like to ask mr. Highland are the graphics that are being used sufficient to fully address the complexities of the questions that come with this topic . I believe that what i visually see could potentially be ramped up a little bit more to show better examples. In town examples. I am not convinced the visual references fully embrace the complexities and possibilities these guidelines try to address in words. Very astute, yes. Maybe we should have given them a couple of the previous versions of this. We are on a deadline. We want to get this policy adopted in the next month, and what we have is not perfect, but it is miles ahead of what we had even six months ago. The biggest challenge, and ms. Small can add to this. There are few good examples at a large scale, and what staff has done is photographed or used images of the intersections of the old and new as opposed to larger full pictures. They used diagrams to show the massing and scale of the old and new. As i am sure we can update the guidelines. As projects come forward that we have better examples of to incorporate. We have been doing this for four years now and talking to other cities trying to figure out good examples. I believe they intentionally used the larger projects not San Francisco because of that challenge. Then there is also the difference of opinions of is that a good example or not a good example. You are right. I am very happy with the current standpoint tuesday, even status. The Graphic Design can be improved. I agree the Graphic Design is fine. I would hope as we become more versed in the topic that we will continueiously update images and learn from other mistakes they are making using some images far less clear than potentially others. I can point out one where i say why dont you use that image. One other item not mentioned is this is another first in the nation. This is the first city to public anything like this. This conversation has been happening for 30 years. I had a ph. D. Dissertation student study this 25 years ago. It is not a new topic, but it hasnt evolved far enough. We are the first city to tackle it. As other cities start adopting it, it will evolve and get better. We did struggle to find good examples. We know of bad examples. We have within the Design Guidelines avoided the donts and showed the dews. We showed nonSan Francisco examples in a very specific way to show the ambition and be opportunity of how well it is done in so many places. I believe with sb330 we can update examples in the future as long as we dont change the content of the guidelines. I have a question for staff as well, too. Whatever version of sd50 is passed retains the language about increasing density near bus corridors and increasing height within a halfmile of the transit lines. Are these a tool you would help whatever buildings are renovated or construct would . Are these guidelines a way to help make sure that the renovated structures fit within the neighborhood . I havent looked at it in a long time. I will say that i think these guidelines are intended to have a conversation around the best Public Benefit what the opportunities of the site may be. We have a lot of soft sites. You know, there are a lot of reasons why we have one story things that arent providing we know we need housing. This is an opportunity to have a public conversations keeping the qualities there or adding institutional uses. There could be a use the commission reviews and says this has a great public purpose. There can be more conversation around that. There is a sense of dislocation when projects are taken out. We get benefiteds what is arriving. That erosion can feel disorienting. This is to help and allow for those things that arent old enough to be resources or fitting in with the more conventional preservation might request to be saved. For all of those issues, this is one of the goals of the project. Commissioner johnson. Thank you for mentioning the fact this is the first like we are one of the firsts to put this forward. I have heard people talking about facades and wha what wha e spirit and what does it mean in a meaningful way. It is really about a larger conversation. These are helping everyone involved. Individuals and mak neighbor lad groups into a conversation about that. I love that it is discretionary to invite us into a conversation. It is not one side fits all. I echo and i am excited about it able to support a public process that invites people in. That actually hasekwitabl has te outcomes. We are looking to you to formize and begin to be on the same page across the city with family and the folks we interact with is a great start. I love the usability of this guide. It was fun to read and look through. I appreciate the astute questions brought up by commissioner more and commissioner fung. I think that preservation is so personal to communities, to individuals, and it is part of that publicprivate. It is important to the owner of the building, to the community, to the city and so there is a balance that needs struck in conversation and making sure people feel like they have a say or a say in what is important. It makes sense to look at how people do appeal or what happens when thinks when people disagree more closely so we can continue be that public equitable process to make sure it gets implemented. I would move to adopt. Thank you to staff for all of your work. Second. Thank you, commissioner johnson. I love this. I think it is beautiful and elegant. Again, thank you, president highland for working on this for so long. It is great work. I am excited that we are having this conversation, yes, i also wish that we had this conversation 10 years ago, but it is what it is. I am excited to see it progress. Once we start discussing this through the lens, we will find ways to see nuances, to adapt it and have it evolve. I am very, very excited about it and good work, guys. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore. The topic Design Guidelines is too long. Is there a way to simplify that . R. E. D. Or stdg . As we continue to work in acronyms, you use them every day, i say what does this mean . It is awful. I called them retained elements. That is the shorthand in the office. I think the director said nothing longer than three letters. He appreciate that. We dont need acronyms. The restdg is awful. I think it is important that we see the system. We have topic Design Guidelines and area Design Guidelines working with urban Design Guidelines and supersede the qualities because they are specific. We dont want the acronym for special topic Design Guidelines. No, we dont want too that. Thank you. Very good. There is a motion seconded to adopt the guidelines. Commissioner diamond. roll call . So moved. That passes unanimously 70. Item 10. 2019022159c wp japan town special area Design Guidelines. This is an informational presentation. We have a double feature today. We bring forward today an informational item looking at japan town special area Design Guidelines. For this process, it is important to give a more robust description of the history of this particular neighborhood to understand the context of why these guidelines are brought forward and the process by which they arrived here. This is a learning process for staff. We have been looking in japan town for some time. It is important to notice the layers of history that have happened there with the environment, in particular, how the community arrived in the western Edition Japanese and japanese americans. After the earthquake there was a formation of this community in the area which had a lot of victorians and European Architecture influences. Of course, as time progressed there were a number of forces with a impact on the environment, particularly in the world war ii where they were forced from homes by the wartime. The remnants of the community that was able to rebuild. One can imagine the qualities and context how it emerged. In 1956 we had redevelopment that was an external influence on the development of the neighborhood in itself. How this led to the development of Community Resistance and new changes to the environment more driven by Community Needs and internal Decision Making which became very potent in developing a larger contract how the environment would be maintained and developed over time. It continued for a number of decades. We see many remnants of that. The important stance is the Decision Making that happened and the framing of the neighborhood, how it reflected those experiences. In willing cases the qualities of the japanese influences that came in and redevelopment devastation gave rise to a new movement in the city. The history coming from that in the last 20 years we have the development of the japan town task force and the development of planning efforts, some were successful and some less so. The japan town Neighborhood Planning Initiative which goped an area plan and opportunity to make some significant changes. That was not successful. Although the japan town Cultural Heritage amend Economic Strategy came from that. There were good and important pieces of information that came out of that, the community decided to continue with that. Those strategies are wide ranging. Quite complex. Very Community Driven and aspects will be unfolding for years to come. This was a groundbreaking process in the city and beginning of Cultural Heritage districts in the city. There is an interesting part of the larger understanding of culture, the Core Development of community and how that began to function within the environment. A lot of Cultural Heritage districts are coming from that. Within the set of strategies was the intent to create japan town guidelines. It is in the document. If you want to look into understanding the origin of Design Guidelines and the intent it is one of many strategies. It was number 10 to begin to help explain, maintain,laborate upon character and qualities of character within that part of the city. The japan town special use district specifically identifies and encourages the japanese design and cultural andtutional uses. Institutional uses. The guidelines began as early as 2011. One of the first things i did at the department was work on this in 20132014 after the adoption in 2013. As we continued to work with the community, the urban guidelines were forging as a substantial project. There was overlap in the practices and goals in the neighborhood commercial district. That was put on hold until the guidelines were passed. They felt that would be redundant with that process. In some ways these were the special guidelines conceived of. There was another layer to more detail around the unique and special qualities of japan town. Over the past year the special guidelines were revived and titled that instead of how they were titled. We as staff have been looking back to the various outreach processes that happened over the last 10 or 15 years including going into the research and looking at the Community Outreach meetings and the notes around that. The cultural district, Community Benefits district and the department of public works and rec and park have been working hand and hand over many meetings to redesign the peace plaza that is at a successful point currently. This is the applicabilities map. We are trying to update the Property Information map. This is on here to see the history of all of the different des us nations of designation of boundary. It would apply to the urban Design Guidelines. These would supersede the conflicts. The guidelines apply in the r districts where there are institutional uses, where there are remembe residential project5 units or larger or frontage 150 feet or longer. We propose the special guidelines would apply in the r districts within the boundary, cultural boundary for those same conditions where the urban Design Guidelines would apply. We will describe the nature from the outreach as described with conversations with Community Members i. They focus on human centered and unique qualities in the environment. Openness and inclusiveness, diversity, Community Building and identity. Sensitivity. Sustainability is big within this dialogue. Transparency, continuity. I think it is important to note the inconclusiveness, quality of this. There have been concern there are many koreans. This is to understand neighborhoods change there is an evolution and there is understanding there will be new projects. The history of japan town be is quite layered, which is why we went through it in such detail. It is about reframing. Japan town is a marker for many outside of San Francisco across the bay area. It is a place of social gathering and inclusiveness is essential. This is not meant to build the walls but to open it up. We have had some really wonderful conversations with the Community Around how japanese architecture and concepts may or may not be relevant. A lot of differentiation between japanese american, japanese california and japan town. All of those layers of cultural understanding. A conversation around authenticity and what it means. It is interesting to hear people talk about different aspects of the neighborhood. They are specific about the meaning of the architecture and qualities and some of the cases it can be referential. One of the core revelations is that the japan town