would like to talk about the enormous amount of work that was done on behalf of the neighbors in the neighborhood. because without the leadership we never would have come this far. we have agreed for a 15-foot setback on the floor, to mitigate the shadows going on the northern side of this overshadowing -- this is overshadowing the firehouse that is there and the other properties. this will bring the shadows down to the equivalent of a 50-foot building. this will provide some relief. we also have the full bmr for the units, and there is -- that is the fraction that will be paid into the fund. we also wished for and received two car shares, or a couple of cars and the benefit of having public meeting space and retail space, except that we are not yet least. this is a very difficult negotiation and many people are disappointed and many people are relieved. some members of the public are here to speak to you today, and i appreciate them coming here and wanting their voices to be heard. these voices should be heard, and hopefully they will feel better being part of the process today. >> i would like to say that i have agreed with all of these changes that we have negotiated. it looks like i lost a unit during the setback redesign and i am back to 38 units. this is for two bedrooms and two bathrooms. this has gone down slightly because of the loss of units. with that, i would like to present my presentation but i do not see this on the television. thank you. we have to switch this -- sorry about this. please push the button. which of these buttons? that is the computer. i thought that we have this worked out before. this is the elevation of the project. and we will see later on, that this is the same architectural style but we have cut back the sixth floor, with the 15-foot setback. just to set this context, two buildings on one lot, on a block with a number of large lots, with the conditional usage application, this is about a little bit larger than the average size. i am on a couple of sides next to the height limit, with the zoning -- this is in the polk neighborhood zoning district. this is the historic structure, and the building -- to the east, this is to the west to pacific heights. this is directly across the street, and this is looking down to pacific heights. and this is looking up to knob hill. we're looking at the predominantly large structures on the block, these other large structures immediately behind me. and in particular, the nine story residential building. my original plan was the slowly conforming plan but i requested that the variants for this setback to include windows and the original plan from two and a half years ago, this was given to the neighborhoods with written and public comments, that this building was too tall. the density of the building is too much, and the commercial district allows for the rear yard variants. this would accomplish six stories of residential on this extreme. i did not have this so i could get six stories of residential. i was not providing the affordable housing and they were worried about the shadows. we began to redesign the project and this is the current design on the model. this is the view down pacific. this is from the block back to nob hill. this is the -- this is not the revised one. over the past three years, i have made a number of changes to the project to address the community concerns, other than 65 feet. this is in a tight zone. this is adjacent to the buildings and this is the one thing that i have held very firm on. there were concerns about setting a precedent. i will leave this for you. blocking the view from jackson street. i have said that this is not protected in the city. the building has been completely redesigned into a number of different forms with different color and texture, with multiple levity levels. and i have gone from 59 units, and now i am down to 38 units with the latest change. i have dropped all this below grade, and this has an eye scratched -- a nice garage. we have a lot of retail space on pacific avenue, and this is a great community oriented to small retail. we have seen a historic structure. they say that there is no shadow impact. i have gone ahead and made this. we see the revision at the sixth floor, to show the four will not be visible by residence below. this area is set back at the top floor. this is the revised elevation and it does not show up well. i hope to be able to plant as much as the department of public works is going to allow me to do. i was able, when we changed the number of units, i was able tad the private, dedicated storage space for each unit, and a large private parking area, for 40 bucks, adjacent to the area of the building. this is a response to the view of the hillside. this is from half a block away. this is not as great an impact as well was put in the eir. this is if you approach the building at the pedestrian level. you are not losing a view of the hills of the city, but rather the buildings themselves. i will conclude my presentation on the staff report, and i hope that you will support the project. i have been working on this for a long time. the soil available for any questions. and so is my architect. >> thank you. i have a number of speaker cards. i would like to thank the project sponsor and the architect. the neighborhood association and particularly supervisor chu for not only bring everything together between all of you, but doing this in one week. if everyone can do this, this is one to save us a lot of trouble. if this can be done before this comes to the commission. roseman, su, and koppel. >> hello, thank you. i am not very good at public speaking. i brought some notes to read. i have been a realtor for just shy of 22 years here in san francisco. as such, you can imagine i am not against development. i am at happy -- -- i am not have the if you approve this building. -- i am not going to be happy if you approve this building. that is not right to build a building that is too large for the neighborhood. by having another oversize building in the area, you are creating a manhattan on pulled street. -- polk street. this is like north point, which led to prop m, the height limit. i believe that this would destroy the beauty of the city that we have been talking about, how this has been described as such a wonderful place to visit. i am not against development, is adjusted for, for the preservation of the look of the neighborhoods. i feel that his building belongs in south beach one mission bay, and not on pacific avenue. i question, also, why there were these statutes on this. we have seen the latest revived -- the latest revised numbers on this. i believe that this exception should not be allowed, just for all of the reasons that i have stated. and i feel that we really need to preserve -- preserve these areas because these are buildings that are not very tall. 1650 was not a great idea. this is there and this has been built already. but two wrongs do not make a right and i hope that you will consider these ideas. for this development and all future developments. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with a real-estate development company in san francisco. i would like to read this for my partner. he would have liked to be here but he had an appointment. i would like to offer my testimonial to ask that you approve this development. i have known him for more than 20 years and have had the opportunity to support a number of his projects over that time. this is very high quality and i understand that some of the neighbors are against this proposed building a life for this to be reduced. we value the neighbors and we have had a good working relationship with these stakeholders. we believe the insisting height limits are appropriate. and we know that the proposed building at 1655 pacific ave will be smaller than some of the neighbors. we believe that the neighborhood engagement with this project has been worthwhile, because this is significantly modified and improved and we believe that this will be a positive addition to the neighborhood and we ask the planning commission to support this project. and i will submit this to the record. >> good afternoon. i am from the san francisco electrical construction industry, to support this project on pacific avenue. after i met the developer, he has been available for discussions and working together on the project. he has directly supported the industry over multiple decades, hiring local contractors who employed the trained labour force in these industries. and the electrical apprentices ship program. and once again, we are in support of the project and we want to grant the conditional use authorization. [reading names] >> i am had never in this in hand i am here in opposition of the pacific avenue development, because the scale of the development, this is too large for the street. and this is too large for the neighborhood of mellomiddlde polk. the diagram that i put up, there was a survey on the buildings in the neighborhood and they were included in a letter, for the conditional use application. this is where i have those numbers. 74 out of 89 of the buildings, 83% of the buildings in this neighborhood are three stories tall or less. 83%. the proposed building is six stories. as you can see, there is only one building that is six stories. the precedents in the neighborhood is the smaller buildings and we ask that you would all the standard plan and design of the street, where the buildings on the corners of the block are going to anchor the streets, and the building on the corner of pacific is already five stories high, and this is already higher than 83% of the buildings in the neighborhood. and then, the building next door to that, which would be on the other side is stepping down in height which is typical for the planning streets. this is a typical block design. we asked that the project continue this trend, and continue the standards redesign with a stub -- where the tallest buildings are on the corner, with this building being in the middle. we ask that this would be shorter in height. furthermore, all the buildings across the street, the article in the neighborhood at three stories or less. we ask that this be designed in accordance with the character of this neighborhood. we recognize that the goal is to have more housing, but do not do this at the extent -- at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. this is the most beautiful city in the world because of the neighborhoods like ours. >> thank you. >> i would like to say that i am against this development. this is out of character with the neighborhood. i agree with those comments about this. 65 feet, i did not see any mention of the fact that there would be a 20-foot elevator penthouse. i believe that there are rules and codes for a reason, and that we are weakening this by continuously granting these exceptions. i would also like to go on record, i remember -- i did not approve of the agreement but i agree with the other comments that the people have made so far. thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to oppose this exception after receiving numerous comments and concerns from the neighborhood association with a have expressed concern over the size of this project. these are the people involved with the neighborhood who know about the character of the neighborhood. none of us are against development of the size of this project is overwhelming and out of character from the name -- for the neighborhood. and it also conflicts with the general plan policies, to conserve neighborhood scale. we have the taxpayers -- for this project. one concern i have is the rooftop deck, and the open space. this is like an additional floor of the building, they have to be supported and have capacity for the system. one careless cigarette or something may burn down the building, and i ask that they have a bigger setback in the back for the open space rather than the rooftop. thank you for your consideration. [reading names] >> i have some concerns about the height of the building, and particularly about the inclusion in housing, which should not be included in the building. i think the setback, with regard to the high as the help. there are other buildings in the area where this has been used, but you do not receive this from the street. and in the wonderful report that was written by the planner, who usually does wonderful reports, there are a couple of things i would take exception to. the proposed structure is compatible with the existing scale. this is something to keep in mind for the future. i was involved in selling these, and we were all involved in this. this is a very wide street. this is framing the street. but this is different. they will look at this street and say, there is not even a seven story building on the block. this is concerning to me. one issue is that if we literally -- the adherents is part of the building envelops and that is less thought that this was for. i do not see any major advantage to try to protect this little crungarage. this is not worth saving in particular. this is a very wide building. we had the future reference that would be better, unless we have the courtyard in the metal. we have the open space in the rear and this would be going up to the front. and this is out on the street -- this is a development that looks like an entire series. in regard to the housing mitigation, -- this kind of inclusion their rezoning -- inclusionary housing does not work. i assume that you have heard this from other people, that this is completely unworkable. this building was not under this kind of program but there were huge differences in the income. you have assessments of 77,000 or 100,000 and it makes a big difference if you are a millionaire and deal -- or if you are living in one of these units. >> good afternoon. i am here to present on behalf of the review committee. we have reviewed this project in december. we have this in 2010. we have seen an attempt by the developer to engage in the community and listen to the citizens. as it was noted, the developer has granted a number of concessions to the community. he has addressed our concerns and taken as a step further by certifying all of this, for a project of 38 units. this complies with the current zoning, within the height established within this area. we support approving this project as an example of mixed use within a hit -- within a historic neighborhood and the context of this neighborhood. this is an example of smart growth. and we confer with the support of the staff. i will read just the conclusion of the letter as presented from the committee, as it has previously been submitted. the project review committee finds that the proposed project is inappropriate use of the site. the increased density in the residential development will enhance this neighborhood. we're also encouraged to building a sustainable project. i would like to submit this letter to the record. thank you. >> i am resident of polk street area and of life for the developer to reduce the scale of the proposed project. the size of this proposed project does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. the neighborhood character -- i have been a resident of this area for 20 years. the character of the neighborhood is the character, of the building prospective by three or four stories. if this does not fit in the neighborhood character, this will not enhance the neighborhood for the residents. and i ask that you ask the developer, and require the developer to reduce the scale of the building. >> and is there additional public comment on this item? >> commissioners, a i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition. we have been falling this project for a year and a half and we like to the appropriate use of the land and the great he urban feeling. and is seen to the members of the endorsement committee, this was a great project in the right location. i think what is most notable about this project is the extensive back and forth between the developers and the community, repeatedly listening and making adjustments to the project and improving this. more than what i can say in support of this project is the well-designed project that is going to help san francisco. the interaction between the people who live there and the difficult decisions that they make to improve the project,