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.