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 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 side-by-side. 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 commission's 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 don't 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 façade 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 a-rated 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 can't 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 won't 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 doesn't 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 doesn't 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 aren't 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 doesn't 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 don't 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 hasn't 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 don'ts 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 sb-330 we can update examples in the future as long as we don't 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 half-mile 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 haven't 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 aren't 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 aren't 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 façades 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 public-private. 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 don't 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 don't want the acronym for special topic design guidelines. >> no, we don't want to do that. >> thank you. >> very good. there is a motion seconded to adopt the guidelines. commissioner diamond. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously 7-0. item 10.

2019-022159c 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 ground-breaking

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 2013-2014 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 appreciates that may be something there right now is not how they would do it currently but that is how the people of a second generation night have done it and they honor that. it is a way to move forward and recognizing the future will have complicated conversations around the individual character and style and what it may mean. i hand this to staff to talk about the recent community

process. >> good afternoon. i will talk about racial and social equity tool for this project. we hold two community workshops in cooperation with the task force, a community-led group. it can be classified in three categories. some felt it is happening quickly. concern is that the property and business owners may hav may be . others say most community members have been reached and any level of protection by the guidelines is better than none. secondly, there were many comments regarding the applicabilities of the design guidelines. members of the community felt it was too limited if applied only

to japan town. planning believes other properties identified in the plan as cultural heritage resources could be used for the guidelines. in addition, properties that meet the criteria will be subject to the special area guidelines. lastly, we received comments regarding the principles that we described earlier. the site design was generally supportive with some inquiries with the shape referred in the guidelines. it is to recognize landmarks such as the pagoda at the peace plaza to integrate the neighborhood to provide a stronger sense of identity. the community for architecture included comments such as

highlight use of bamboo and natural wood. it should permeate this action andy signs should harmonize. building layers should be honored and open space be grated. it should be a journey between public and private. for public there was general support. landscape is valued. they commented open spaces should allow privacy. this should be designed to be flexible for different uses and users allowing different events and rehearsals. it is a design that includes lighting and equipment resulting in a stronger neighborhood character. public artshould be integrated

offering opportunities for kids to play and individual interpretive spaces. it should provide a sense of neighborhood safety. planning staff applied the racial equity to this project. the goal is to identify the measurings to minimize the negative effects of the proposed guidelines. we have three main benefits. stakeholders include city staff, project sponsors and community. benefits include clear expectations from staff and sponsors and community doing design review reducing review time and costs. it will honor the context of japan town and reinforce the vilattalty. we have one unintended

consequence for the design guidelines. the stakeholders impacted are sponsors and community. the higher costs are due to design expectations which can be mitigated by providing streamlines. it will reduce costs. the second burden is limitations on the flexibility for project sponsors mitigated by better design and neighborhood cohesiveness. it is a potential higher housing or represents due to high construction costs caused by higher quality materials. they can analyze each project individually and -- evaluate the project. >> good afternoon, commissione

commissioners. trent greene, staff architect. i will go through the guidelines we feel highlight how these guidelines augment the design guidelines in place for this area. the project came in with the urban guidelines would be used to evaluate the project. looking at how these guidelines look at unique conditions of japan town and address them. as with other guidelines it is three main categories, site, architecture and public realm. the first guideline organize new development to support peace pagoda as a visual landmark. this shows with a small project area we can start to look at unique conditions. for example the peace pagoda.

one of the community members said it needs to be preserved. it is a landmark only that can be seen from afar. if the mall was redeveloped and changed the context of the peace pagoda, it wouldn't have the same mean goes to the community. we are looking at shaping the building to respond, potential set backs. bay windows with views of the pagoda. this is one example the guidelines would not necessarily achieve that. second is transparency and screening and layering at the ground floor. we are looking at storefronts. in japan town, storefronts take on a different character than the storefront around the city. it has a bulkhead at the base,

storefront window with clear stories above. in japan town there is varied play of solids and voids, and a revealing of the storefront in layers through screening which could be metal work and wood slats and so forth. this addresses that condition in japan town. finally, looking at the public realm. balance for public and personal space design. you have the major events through out the year. you also need smaller areas for intimate gatherings daily. the guidelines look at a way to sort of integrate nature into the open space so primarily on buchanan mall and the peace

plaza the main spines that anchor the community but also addressing more challenging conditions such as geary boulevard which creates a border to the neighborhood and how to improve that. if you look at the images, you know preserving and highlighting the roof of the fountain and been be chess, using these for setting the bar through new designs throughout the publicrel willing and looking at streetscape for some of the others. it really has? unique conditions that i think is guidelines will address in a way more specifically than currently happening. looking at next steps. we have revised draft design guidelines friday or tomorrow. moving very quickly and they are

constantly evolving. japan task force board meeting on tuesday. we are planning for planned adoption hearing december 19th. this is a very compressed timeline but we are doing our best to respond to the conditions of japan town. that concludes our presentation. we are available for questions. thank you. >> do we have any public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner fung. >> couple of comments and questions. you know, i was pleased to see that the guidelines remain relatively general in the following sense. that is that rather than looking

at the issue between what has been traditionally viewed as japanese architectural elements which wind up to be a historical feature, and recognizing also that, you know, japanese architecture has gone through quite a bit of various movemen movements, it is good to see that the guidelines are relatively general. there are probably a couple items i may not necessarily agree with personally, but i think in general it is fine. i did have a question whether for one specific instance something a little bit more

specific worry choired -- would be required. one of the disasters is japan town center which created walls across substantial number of blocks on both sides of it. if there is any development that is going to occur in the center itself, i think we would want to encourage them to create physical connections to the street. there is no sense of community that exists. i wonder if we want a sub set to be included in the guidelines to address that particular situation. >> current leap under the you are -- currently under the planning code there would be an active use requirement along

those edges. we certainly have heard from many community members concerned around how the walls at the edge of the street are not conducive to what they see at the bucan man mall where there is a lot of engagement. it fits under the code with an active use requirement under 145 and the special area with the 8.1 to how that active use and engagement should be done. i am curious to hear if you have more specific detail around the qualities how that could be accomplished. >> sometimes with guidelines you need to have more specific to it. i just thought that might be just a little hint to the owners of that facility. last question would be -- somewhere in there it talks

about from the community point of view that having these guidelines would reduce their need to attend hearings and object to projects. wasn't that somewhere in here? i don't see how that is going to happen. these guidelines are not that specific. >> from is some question, particularly with the unintended burdens of the design guidelines, whether it encourages more interaction with the community and more hearing with the community. some might see it as a public benefit. the burden to certain community members to take the additional time is challenges. that is a question if that is a benefit or burden or how it lays in balance. >> the pros and cons. >> right. >> commissioner diamond. >> i thought this was a

wonderful piece of work. i particularly enjoyed the history and context at the beginning. it gave a level of understanding that wouldn't have read the same way without it. my question has to be with the status of geary boulevard. i am looking at the border. it goes down the middle of geary. does that i am apply work at hand about the freeway situation? >> i don't know the current status of everything going on. there is transportation suggests what could happen with geary boulevard. i think it is a bit of conversation within the community. we limited it to the mcd that stops. many community members feel they want to include what is on the other side of geary because they want to be able to -- should geary change and there is a question with rapid bus there may be