question. i believe we already have language that allows some flexibility in the secretary's standards as part of the legislation and has been drafted. commissioner sugaya: my understanding, if i might, is the secretary standards are there. but then the department, the commission, and the hpc will enter into the process of creating new guidelines -- president miguel: interpreted guidelines. commissioner antonini: so it is already in there. i think there is a 4-2 vote on that, with a modified language, so that is fine with me. >> may i ask for a brief clarification? do you want to add a time limit to statements in article 11 that you added to article 10, that if the proposal interpretations have not been approved by both commissions within 180 days,

there will be deemed approved? lastly, for the last line, do you want to accept the hpc striking "if it is found the demolition would significantly damaged the district"? well, i understand the position. this could substantially diminished. on the other hand, when you look at the integrity of a district, when you are creating the district, you have to come up with certain reasons and

justification's for why you have a bunch of buildings that might not be historic buildings but the district still is a historic district. i think then that that is kind of a substantial way of looking at that and we are trying to figure out whether substantial can be defined in a little bit of a different kind of manner. >> i would leave it in. >> i would leave it in, too. >> are you leaving it in? >> we are leaving it in. >> please restate your motion. i am not sure i have this. >> ok, the motion as i understand it is beginning with article 10 is to accept the

change suggested by the amendment for 1004.1, changing the language from 66% to a majority. point number two is in the discussion of the outreach to owners and occupants within potential historic district. you would reinstate the language that supervisor wiener proposed which includes expressing the opinion in writing and identifying the goals tha be paf honors and occupants. >> you did not want the writing in their, did you?

>> the next section relates to the local interpretations of the standards and you would reinstate the language proposed by supervisor wiener to include the planning commission and you would include language that once that process is started, if either commission does not act within 180 days, these are considered approved. >> next, the economic hardships section. you would create these new sections with don't exist. you would strike them first.

these are amendments. this does not include sections g and h. you would leave them not included. we would like these new sections introduced that encourage the board to study and looking at the issue of economic hardship. for article 11, and you would make the same change relating to article 10 which would be to add occupants to the people that have received the documents for the proposed district and you would look at this in writing and retain the goal of 50%.

for 1111 g, economic hardship. >> the language is not the same. >> it appears the deletion of this subsection which was proposed by the supervisor which calls for working in city owned

properties. it seems from the way you have crafted your motion that you are striking and in addition to the following problem which is economic hardship. as explained as originally drafted, this calls for this to consider the operational budget for city agencies in considering their proposals. those have been modified. it must be the mission and operational needs. they voted to strike at language completely. >> that is the last paragraph. >> page 31, this is the very

first line. >> i would like to keep it out. >> with recommendation. >> i think there is a desire to craft language around that. there has to be some sort of consideration. it does not have to be mandatory. >> maybe that is what we do. new language. >> they would be stricken or not included.

>> right. >> back to 111107 e, would you like to add a goal to the department? >> this should be consistent. >> economic hardship is 1111 g, would you recommend strike in the whole section? you are accepting department's recommendations? then 11116, replicated the language of article 10 regarding the global are interpretations of the standards and adding 180 days from the first action hearing.

then, you would leave this language and not strike it. in the last line, you would leave in the lines proposed by supervisor wiener as it is proposed and this would diminish the integrity of the conservation. >> yes. >> thank you. >> on the motion as it has been modified. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

with the was a little. it is this has passed, but the city on this. it will take a 10 minute break. 10 minutes, no more. when we come back, we are considering item 12 on the agenda. >> this has been going on for three year >> supervisor mar is here, he has a limited time and we welcome his comments. supervisor mar: i hope this item is much shorter than the previous one. [laughter] though this item impacts the

richmond district, is also part of district 2 as well. i will ask for your support. it is a measure that would allow 5-foot height increases to create more attractive store fronts in the neighborhood commercial districts. it would really help us revitalize our richmond district. it will also help the storefronts to be more attractive for our neighborhood. it is consistent, as emery rogers and others have pointed out, the urban design standard, it is great policy to have higher, more livable storefronts for people in our neighborhoods. i have met with and had really great conversations with a number of neighbors who live in and jordan heights, north of geary from palm to parker. palm is where the post offices

and carper is where the roosevelt middle school is. i am asking for a small amendment today. you have a letter in front of view that is asking for the stretch of geary boulevard from palm to parker, 1062-1065, to be removed from the legislation. it is at the urging of supervisor mar and supervisor farrell. also from the activists in the jordan heights neighborhood improvement association. i ask for your support and this will help our neighbor award -- our neighborhood revitalize emerging corridors. thank you. president miguel: the north side? supervisor mar: yes. only on the north side of the street. commissioner moore: may i ask a question? thank you for clarifying.

we have indeed received quite a few letters ourselves. very happy that you're jumping in and modifying the legislation carried my question is, does that concern emerson to the east and the west? is that included in what you are amending? supervisor mar: it includes the assessors block on the harborside that are on the western side of -- on parker side and for palm avenue, it is on the west side. the assessors blocke on the blok that roosevelt middle school is on is not included in. my understanding in talking to the neighborhood activist who knows the area well, he that -- they have a specific zoning that

is not a 40-50-foot height zoning. the western side is not necessary to include that. commissioner moore: in general, i am very happy that you came to clarify. thank you. >> i would like to introduce kimya. she has been with the department for a few months. she has been working with citywide and long-term planning and also legislative products -- projects. she started as an intern for rec and park. she has experience working directly with the community in san francisco and los angeles agreed she graduated with honors from ucla and the planning program curry she originally worked for the planning and redevelopment agencies in

teheran. should read from the faculty of fine arts and urban studies. we are pleased to have her. >> hello i am here to introduce the ordinance proposed by supervisor mar. i'm going to start by briefly introducing the ordinance and then talking about why it is being proposed. i am going to continue with presenting the modifications the department is going to propose. i will talk about the public comments they received so far and then our conclusion. i will end with the environmental review results and the additions we have to the draft resolution. this is a very familiar topic to you. this is an ordinance that would amend the planning code 263.20

to provide a maximum five-foot ground floor height increase. this would be when active uses are provided. actor uses as defined by section 145.1e. it would allow a maximum five- foot ground floor height increase when a maximum uses -- when active users are provided. this is on geary boulevard between scott and 28th. the overhead. parts of that are going to be affected by this. this ordinance also amends section 712.10 to replace the zoning table for the commercial

moderate scale for the zoning district. i'm going to talk about how this ordinance will benefit the public and why is being proposed. the design and use of building ground floor has a direct influence on the pedestrian experience. active uses provide a visually interesting edge to the important in the neighborhood commercial streets. all of their buildings usually accommodate this but providing -- by providing a use that is available for walk-up's and provides a minimum of a 12-foot high ceiling. as you see in this picture, this is an example of an older building and with a high ceiling that has active store fronts. in some new buildings have moved away from adding such visual

interested. this is mostly due to the height limit that has been practiced in the city for a while. they result in a ground-floor -- usually, product sponsors try to maximize the number of floors and units. for example, in a 40-x height district, it would result in four floors of around 8-9 feet. that would result in an aesthetically inviting character for pedestrian activity. as you can see in this other example, this is an example of a newer building with four force -- floors and a lower ceiling. this black line shows the

ceiling of the ground floor and you can see how the bay windows are really close to the ceiling of the ground floor. those uses are not inviting and there are not attractive to pedestrians. therefore, they do not lend themselves to a lively public life on the sidewalk. i have two examples here. on the right, you see a newer building with a low ceiling and on the left, you see an older building with a higher ceiling and more active ground floor. this legislation would accommodate transitions of this style on the building on the right to how it used to be on the building on the left. it would still maintain the

number of floors possible to the existing height limit. this would encourage more active and attractive and ground-floor space by giving a five-foot high bonus two buildings which meet the definition of active ground- floor units. i'm going to clarify what we mean by active uses. in order to qualify for this incentive, uses need to be active, meaning they need to be oriented with public access and walk up activity. usually, commercial uses are considered active. residential users can also -- uses can also be considered active. i also want to mention that, in the past couple of years, you have approved a similar ordinance. there is a five-foot height bonus in zoned parcels along

mission street in district 11 and within the boundaries of sergeant street. also, in the eastern neighborhoods. now i'm going to continue with the modifications that the department is proposing. the department for course 2 per opposed this proposal and recommends some modifications. in commercial orders play an important role in providing a contact for a lively sidewalks and an interesting pedestrian experience. other commercial corridors in the richmond district can also benefit from this maximum of five-foot height bonus. it will lead to more interesting building frontage is a. -- frontages.

as shown in the map, we are -- sorry, this is the wrong map. we are proposing contiguous commercial quarters on the elbow a street and clement st. -- on balboa st. and clement st. since refocusing on contiguous commercial corridors, we are focusing on geary boulevard to apply the ordinance west of the masonic to 28 avenue. we are still keeping the rest of masonic, moving a couple blocks

east because it will not be a continuous commercial corridor. this legislation, first, it will activate the ground floor, which will bring life to the shopping clusters. it will provide an incentive for taller and more gracious ground force bases. this legislation will help to emphasize some important design elements and ensure that commercial course provide lively stretches in the neighborhood. this is inconsistent with the historical commercial corridors in this neighborhood. i would like to conclude with a summary of public comments we received. we received one comment before the comment period ended and four more afterwards. they are concerned about the adverse impact of this ordinance on the boulevard between -- on

geary boulevard between palm and parker. a couple of blocks are about 30- feet high. they are concerned it would add to the buildings along geary boulevard. the department has fully review these comments and, as you can see, we have managed to take them out of three blocks. these existing districts, these blocks were commercial parcels and they were 40-x. if you want to compare these three blocks, the ordinance was only at 5 feet if the development is proposed. the staff considers this impact on adjacent residential units

insignificant. our also like to emphasize that this ordinance would not allow another four and it would not provide any incentive for developments by itself. it would provide great news to the residence and the greater public, in -- improving the pedestrian experience on the sidewalk, and would also help create lively commercial corridors that are consistent with historical impact. lastly, i would like to add to items to the dress revolution. -- to the draft resolution 31 as the environmental review under ceqa for this ordinance. second, i also want to add that his organs would amend section 716.1 and 717.1 and 711.1 to

reflect the proposed site changes in the zoning control tables in the nc-2 districts in. i also want to a knowledge regina, the director of the small business commission. she is here and to like to express the commission's action on this ordinance. thank you. president miguel: thank you very much. supervisor mar? president chiu: -- supervisor mar: i want to a knowledge that i really appreciate regina for being here and working with the merchants along the erie to come up with ideas to fill vacant storefronts and make it more of an attractive and active area, not just around theory -- geary, but balboa and clement as well.

it is really great to have her here. >> thank you, supervisor mar kurri and good afternoon. i wanted to make sure to be here to support supervisor mar's legislation. this is the type of thing that while sometimes it might seem insignificant, we think it will have a tremendous impact on our commercial corridors. the commission originally heard this matter when i was part of an initial piece of legislation. i am here to say that they are in support of it carried this is the type of thing that we think maintains our viable financial corridors and supports our historic -- where we see the vibrancy is where we see a commercial properties that have at least a 12-feet in terms of the commercial space to. when a development comes in to

the commercial corridor, we want to make sure it mirrors what is existing along with the heights for existing faces. that is important for the viability of our commercial corridors. it achieves many of our goals so we are very pleased that the supervisor has introduced it. we are very much in support of it. thank you. president miguel: thank you for coming. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is rose hillson. i had a discussion with the board. the president of jordan park could not attend today. i would like to extend my thanks to supervisor farrell for working with supervisor mar and planners