>> susan paradox, california native plant society. welcome. >> i'm susan with the california native plant society. i wanted to thank the department of environment for your biodiversity resolution. because you implemented a bio diversity resolution, our local ecosystem have benefited. the urban forestry council has added our local native trees to their proved tree lit. the san francisco department of public works is designing the sunset boulevard improvement to include our local plant communities and local pollenate or plants and rec and parks department is designing francisco park with local pollenate or plants and rain water caption reuse for irrigation. if you sthank you so much for td work. please, consider implementing a die owabio diversity strategy ad

policy that vancouver and new york have done. that will enhance our local seekosis tom, improve human health, mitigate climate age and i hope it will be part of your climate action strategy in 2020. and thank you to anthony valdez for all your good work. thank you. >> next item is item 11, announcements, this item is for discussion. >> no announcements or public comment. the next item is 12, new business future agenda items. anthony valdez, this is

discussion and possible action. >> so, commissioners, in charles' absence i will do the new business today. at the january commissioner meeting, we'll be having the regular items which is the voting on the budget and the recommendation that comes from the operations committee. as well as voting on the annual report and the recommendation that comes from the policy committee. there's an election of officers as well as a couple of presentations from the climate team about hazard and resiliency plans that the cities is working on. so that's what we have so far in store for january. as well as the racial equity plan. that's coming in january. there you go.

>> ok. any discussion on this item? any public comment? next item, please. >> clerk: the next item is item 13, public comment on all matters pertaining to the went subsequent closed session. >> before we move into closed session do review, director rafael will take public matters. is there any public comment? >> the next item is 14, vote on whether to hold closed session to evaluate the performance of the executive director, california government code section 54957af admin code 67.10b. this item is action. >> thank you. so we need a motion.

>> i move. >> moved by commissioner wong second. >> it's been moved and seconds. going into closed session to evaluate the performance director rafael. say aye. aye. any we are back in open session. >> the time is 8:48 p.m. >> do i hear a motion to not disclose any or all discussions held in closed session? >> so moved >> second. >> moved by commissioner sullivan, seconded by commissioner wan. is there any discussion? any public comment? all those in favor of moving to

not disclose any or all discussions held in closed session, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? motion carries. the next item. >> the next item is item 16, to make a recommendation to the department of human resources to increase the compensation of the executive director. this item is discussion and action. >> the commission can make a recommendation to the san francisco department of human resources on the compensation of director raphael. the motion that we will vote on is to recommend to the department of human resources to increase the compensation of director raphael. do i hear a motion? >> i move >> moved by commissioner wald. >> second. >> seconded by commissioner stephenson. is there any discussion?

is there any public comment? those in favor, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? the motion carries. the next item, please. >> the next item is item 17, adjournment. the time is 8:50 p.m. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you >> we are adjourned. ...

parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity.

bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. people can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given

all the mobile community and mobile information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation .org and having wifi in our parks makes

it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in san francisco parks, go to

this time. president melgar. [roll call] >> first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. 2013.0689cua 2 henry adams - located on the west side of henry adams street under your regular calendar for case numbers 2018 for 1776 green street, conditional use authorization and variances proposed for continuance to january 9, 2020. i have no other items proposed

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. you'll see the cases from 2013. if there's 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. i'm 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 we'll look into that. >> and then that's 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 7-0. 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 don't 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 moore's point, i read a few times here about the lack of gas stations, they have to drive across island in manhattan to get gas-related 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 that's the whole point. and we started talking about a census of gas stations. at one point there were 100 and now there's 70. so maybe we could see the changing phos face-to-face 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 don't 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 carbon-emitting cars are eliminated, be able to service, i think that's a great idea. it should be larger for the retail discussion that we have on our action item, the last big item that we haven't really addressed yet. so just a question. i don't want to regurgitate. there's an article in the paper yesterday, a law on housing, judge says san mateo can ignore california's statute. i read the article and got confused because there's rulings the charter cities don't have to follow it. there's 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 i'm 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. it's 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. >> i'll call you. there's 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. it's 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. nobody's gotten this memo. i think you need to get it. it's addressed to you. and there's 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. director's 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 wasn't 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 there's 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 preservation commission 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 i'ms 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 doesn't enforce private agreements since the planning commission's 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. i'm the president of the haight-ashbury merchants association. i'm 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 e-mails 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 regularly-scheduled 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. it's 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. i've been talking recently, if i can again, about a project for the kitchens or inefficient use of space. and it sounds weird but you'll get it in a minute. can i have the overhead, please? this is a picture of a restaurant, the kitchen in the restaurant. but here's 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. there's 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, there's 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 that's 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. that's next -- i can't 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 i've forgot them. i'm 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 it's on the market. here it is all done. for $4.3 million. so that's all. i just want to say that. i probably have something else to say but i forgot. it's six years i've been talking about. hello, commissioner diamond, welcome, good luck to you. six years in january, 2020, i started january 2014. so that's all. and i do think the kitchen thing is really interesting, because you've 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 don't 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. i'm 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 it's 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. 2019-014348pca 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. i'm 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.

i'll 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 on-site 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 on-site 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, i'll 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 attorney's 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 won't go into it again but i'm 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 e-mailed 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

low-density 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 -- i'm 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. it's 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 doesn't 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 on-site inclusionary, which we are always happy to see. we don't know if people will do it but why not allow it? if your staff are right and they don't do it, no harm, no foul. if they are wrong and people do it, you'll get not only a few more market rate units but you'll begin to see affordable units in neighborhoods and mixed income projects we wouldn't 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 non-residential use for the planning code so limits would apply. if you don't 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, we've been a big champion of these. there's 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. that's the first thing. the other thing is by removing these loopholes, the areas that don't allow you to approve the merger under section 317, so that's 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 don't remove that unit or replace it in kind. you can't 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 rent-controlled 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. i've been before you with one, and i'm going to be in front of you with another project in a couple months. it's 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, that's 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 -- i'm 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. doesn't 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, it's 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 supervisor's 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 can't prevent the no fault evictions. we can't prevent owner move-in 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 can't 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 won't 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 can't happen now, because you are only allowed by section 317 to require them to retain units if there's 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? >> it's 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?

>> that's 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 don't know the far because we don't 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 wouldn't 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 don't 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 supervisor's 2.0.

i have been in touch with the city attorney's 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 can't 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 can't 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 re-set 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 2018-017235cwp 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 façade.

it can speak to different buildings that are either visual and something people notice in the neighborhood, part of the fabric. the façades 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 hasn't 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