>> are you -- may i respond? i'm prepared for -- or i basically can. we have to take d.r. i can't approve the building as proposed. >> i was going to move to continue for a month or six weeks whatever the commission feels is appropriate, let's go six weeks for project sponsor and neighborhood to work together to try to create a design in the department -- and the department to create a design that is in keeping with what the commissioners have said tonight, that will -- will help to make this as more compatible with the neighboring houses in terms of its design. >> a second? >> second. >> your proproceedsal is to bring this back december 2nd. >> that works. >> public hearing to remain open. >> sure. >> olague. commissioner olague: i would be inclined to support a design that goes to three floors.

i'm not really appreciative of the -- i just think that sometimes -- i really -- don't have an issue with modern architecture, i don't, but i do think this -- this just is too glaring. in a way. it just -- i don't -- i think it is -- it doesn't conform very well with the -- with the traditional neighborhood. i don't. >> i don't know what you do with that. i mean -- but i don't. anyway. i know people are mocking me and laughing but it is late and hard to articulate on some level. what i'm trying to -- to say here. i think three floors. i would rather go with the first motion but given we're forced into this continuance, i guess -- i guess three floors is something that you should be able to work with. >> i support the d.r. requester

-- >> would you like me to respond to that? >> no. i don't. 078 r only condition to support a continuance is several architects in the d.r. work together and come up with something that works. it is not necessarily exactly the expression of architecture but the general principles of massing and appropriate fit including size. >> i want to add we're not rep -- replicating the building. nobody is asking you to design an artificial victorian. if you could work it out with the neighbors, hopefully we wouldn't even have to see it and you could resolve that. that would be ideal. >> olague? >> yeah. again, it is what everything was saying. i don't need to see a gabled

roof and mock -- what do you call the windows. bay windows. that's not what i'm -- whatever. i think work with the -- with the architects and maybe -- that's good. >> commissioner antonini: i'm not locked in with the three floors. it would need to be something that blends in. you could go through neighborhoods in san francisco and see different architectural styles and see massing, that is similar and even though one is a little higher but because of the roof treatment that is are similar and because of the lines of these buildings that are similar, even though they may come from different periods, and be 134 what different, the massing is similar. and i think that's where you would look at it and say, yes, that's taller. but it seems to sort of flow with the pattern of the house as they come down the pill -- hill. that's why i suggested the

gabling idea. it will allow you to flow even though it may be higher. that's for the architects to work out. >> commissioner commissioner moore: moore i encourage the applicants to do more on your own presentation to matching and 3d expression and the majority of things we have here are done by others. perhaps we are not doing full justice to your proposal but something to describing it properly. >> commissioner sugaya: i think the setback part of it comes from staff, is that correct? the front -- the front setback on -- on the fourth floor. >> 15-foot came from the staff. commissioner sugaya: they're back frankfurt than that on the design. >> 15 feet from the paper wall. commissioner sugaya: okay. there may b commissioner sugaya: okay. there may be consideration given depending on the design about --

>> depending on the design -- yeah. sugging is i rather have three floors myself. as with ant ton neney, if there's any consideration for a fourth level, it has got to be something along the lines of what he's talking about and maybe if that -- if that works its way -- works out, we might even entertain bringing it forward. i'm not saying i'm going to vote for it. i'm saying there are certain options that might be explored. there's a lot of things here that you know, some of us don't like. i particularly don't like grinning a variance on a new building that violates the yard requirement. that's done because we want -- we want to have two units with three bedrooms or -- one with two and one with three, whatever it is supposed to be. and then therefore, you know,

there's a bit of -- of compromise there, to say that -- to accommodate the housing in the floor flan, et cetera, et cetera. the way the space is allocated frake i -- frankly in the two units that they need this variance. i think you could save space, perhaps for the exactly what the program called for, but -- you know, you really need a family room? i don't know? and -- so from that standpoint, i think that -- i think the program can be rethought and -- the commission seems to be drifting toward three stories, i start there first. >> i think it starts with both groups, talking to each other and -- facing the issues and -- coming up with -- there's been enough criticism, we're not here to design the building, but at

minimum a presentation that resonates with consensus and uses all of the tools which are normally required for this commission i.e., 134 3d present is -- presentations or colored rendersion or whatever. this is far shooter of -- short of what we normally get. >> i believe -- >> we're -- i guess we're -- it threw me off in what -- it was -- really was the reference to harvey milk and diversity and try to apply it to this -- to this project. it just -- i don't believe those were his intenses when he made the comments. i'm not sure this is what he referred to. it is out of context and for what that is worth. i mean -- anyway. so hopefully you work it out with the requesters and we come up with a better project. >> i haven't said anything on project. up to now, i'll be susssint, the

building as presently designed does not fit the site. it is just that simple. and -- on a few building, there's for reason for a variance unless it accomplishes something else. if the vireyaps -- variance is necessary to get two, three bedroom units that coom units t bedroom units that could be proved, that's one thing. otherwise a new construction doesn't call for air variance unless there's very unusual circumstances. >> commissioners on the floor is a motion for continuance to december 2nd with the public hearing to e are paper -- remain open to consider a new design and hopefully there would be discussion between the two party the. on the motion, ant neney. eye eye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye >> thank you commissioners, this has been continued to december

2nd. commissioners now in gem public comment. >> we have one comment. >> better be quick. >> barely. >> commissioners. rather than going into everything i was going to go into, i would just make this as brief as possible. this project taught me a lot about the planning process. and prior to that -- >> you can't. >> i'm not going to talk about -- i objected -- i did not object to the changes you were making in the d.r. process. i have learned that the d.r. process is critical and it needs to be public. which was residential design team is not. having the same person do a review and the project review and the items to be missed. the preplanning -- preplanning notice to the side is

inadequate. i can go into this further, given lateness i will not. i ask you to direct the staff or the zoning administrator to give me a call and i could express directly the problems that came up and the problems with the planning process. if these remain i'll go to the board of supervisors and oppose any change to the -- to the d.r. process that you would like to see. thank you so much. >> additional public comment? >> if not public comment is closed. >> and the meeting cannot be adjourned, the zone administrator needs to add on the variance for lloyd street. >> we'll continue that item the public hearing will remain open to december 2nd, the same date as the d.r. hearing. >> that the hearing is closed. sorry. didn't mean to cut you off. stife

san francisco league of women voters and i'm here today to discuss proposition a, a proposition that voters will be voting on on november 2nd. this will authorize the city of san francisco to issue general obligation bonds the bonds would be used to finance earthquake retrofitting on affordable housing and some of room occupancy buildings that currently deemed to be at risk during an earthquake, this will allow an increase of property taxes to take the bonds. i have the chairmen of the san francisco republican party and an opponent of proposition a. >> first of all, generally speaking, bonds are used for government buildings. part of this building is a government owned but part of them are privately owned income-

producing buildings. we don't think that the taxpayers should have to pay to retrofit privately-owned buildings. the landlords own knees and they did not have to pay these bonds -- the landlords own these and they did not have to pay these bonds back. san francisco has roughly six and a half billion dollar annual budget. the infrastructure is always the last thing. you wait till it crumbles rather than fixing it well over funding some other things. we don't think that those people will be charged to pay for those bonds should have to pay to retrofit privately owned

buildings. >> what are the costs and benefits to san francisco citizens if this was to pass? >> this is usually about double for the bonds. a $46 million bond, this will be close to 100 million by the time they're done paying interest and everything else on it. the benefit is that the buildings are retrofitted but they should be retrofitted by income at the city has been tell -- that the city has. this is very high for any city. >> thank you. i am now with the deputy director of the urban planning and research center.

why do you support this measure? >> the reason that i support the measure is that it is very difficult to think about earthquakes or even talk about them. often, we just want to put our head in the sand and pretend that they are not coming. unfortunately, we know they are coming. there is a 53% chance that we will have a major event here in the bay area in the next 30 years. what we need to do now is to get prepared. part of that is thinking about the resilience of our city. the ability of our city to rebound quickly. in order to do that, we need to shore up our buildings and our lifelines'. we can have buildings here in san francisco. that is why the department of building inspection has been

working on a program. they have done a report that is all about -- buildings. contrary to the name, their buildings that have a seismic vulnerability right on the ground floor because of many window openings were garage door openings. those are the buildings that collapsed or tilted during the last earthquake. we had a lot of those buildings right in san francisco. it is estimated that we have 2800. this proposition provides $46 million worth of financing to retrofit these buildings that house low-income people. these of the most vulnerable. this will allow us to retrofit those buildings so the collapse rate goes from between 11%-33%

to between 1%-3%. that means we will not end up like new orleans after katrina. >> how will this benefit san francisco voters? >> this is a very modest bond. extremely modest general obligation bond. the cost per $5 thotho,000 of assessed value is $7.94. the important thing to remember is there is a big cost to doing nothing because if these buildings fall down not only do we have to rebuild them at a huge cost to us and all society but they're a major fire risk. the gas lines can break and they can cause a big fire, which is why the fire persons are very concerned about this measure as well and want to see it passed. >> thank you, sarah the please visit the league be women voters web site for all voting information and don't forget to

vote on -- on november 2.