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 w