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, they say, we can live with this. we have all the things that are good for san francisco. he should not hesitate to approve this project. in particular because of all the difficult concessions that were made because of all the stakeholders. >> and is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i would like to say that i appreciate, the give-and-take on this, and the fact that there has been some reasonable conclusion on this. i am particularly pleased myself with this inclusion, and this is proper. i also appreciate the fact that,

because i met with both sides, i met with the project sponsor regarding the ground floor of retail. he was able to engineer this up to a full 14 feet, which is the minimum for the ground floor retailing space, the retailing of small spaces. this is not a standard residential block, this is a transitional block between van ness and less on polk. this becomes transitional on residential until this narrows drastically. this is a series of transactions. this is a mixed use block. this is not the existing residential block. i think that these concessions,

i do not believe that this car share was available for the public. i am happy that this was taken care of. i do believe with the setback on the sixth floor, the shadows, which, from what i understand, are equivalent to a 50-foot building, will be taken care of because the other side of the block, -- >> i agree with what the president has said. >> this is supported by the buildings, particularly on jackson, if this is of the

taller nation -- taller nature. this is the parking in the retail. many people spoke about the affordable being on site. we have the affordable upside in the neighborhood and this would be in -- this would be possible in the city if we begin to put together the resources and we do this in the various neighborhoods. this will eliminate some of the challenges. this is the negotiated thing that was wanted by the neighborhood. some of the neighborhood and i think that this is fine. i am a little bit concerned about the design. i have spoken to the project sponsor, and what we are doing in the pencil sketch is a more accurate rendering of what we

have done. one thing that is very impressive is the depth that we have provided. we do not have a review on the windows. there is a relief on this that gives a feeling of warmth to the buildings. and this does have this. with particular reference to the area above the historical garage, i am hoping that this will not be red in color, but stucco with a finish with the rest of the building, as it was shown in this sketch. and this is sensitively done, going back to the buildings that are in that area, without duplicating them. that is something that you can continue to work with with the staff and we are moving in this direction. i am very supportive. i would caution you, that

wherever, this will be tho -- this will be the case, that this be of the highest quality. some of this is not working very well. other than those things, i think that this is a very good project. >> i would like to talk about the profits and if the process would not have occurred, there is nothing i could have reported. the neighborhood has tried for several years to keep the commissioners involved with this problem with this particular building and design, but the other issues in the neighborhood. one of them is the building on the corner of polk and pacific, where the neighborhood and the developer worked with the architect in a manner that produced something that the commission can stand behind.

this building has been adapted to the common ground that is acceptable in support of these solutions, to the extent that this does other things, bringing affordable units into the project, with the gap for catching up with this, narrowing, and this is exemplary. and we have found a way to deal with the urgent need for this area so that people cannot really have vehicles on their own. i think that this would be a great boost for the neighborhood and this goes hand in hand with the legislation that was just adapted a few days ago. i think that we are pretty much on track. i am not certain about if i agree with the commissioner and his directions regarding the pencil sketch, in regards to what you are talking about. if you could hold this,

commissioner. the sketch was done by another architect. not just the one that designed the building. this building, i am not certain which of them has the declaration. i find this somewhat objectionable, and hopefully not being considered. this is more reminiscent of the architecture in europe, and in brussels. particularly with the architects designed this and this is almost identical to what i see on the sketch. i do not believe that the architects who have been used on this project, that this is much more appropriate. i would like to talk briefly about something that i am very happy about. the neighborhood is standing its ground. i am and happy that we have to revert to the supervisors for

this project. this is unfairly burdening the supervisors. in nothing that we have to bring them out to make certain that the developer understands that they have to have experience and a passion about this. that is what this commission response to very strongly. and the next time around, this will be a great example of how we like for things to be done. i would like to close with this -- i am happy that they have not taken at this far. and i would like to ultimately find a way to work with the department that we understand that height and bulk are entered-related conditions and that the exceptions are actually in the favor of high.

they are supposed to work with each other. this is about high modifying the bulk. we will continue to get more into issues like this. and then we will start to reexamine how we wanted to find the hide and -- as a rule, which means there are no exceptions to this role. >> continuing on a little bit in this regard, we seem to get a lot of cu's or dr's. there are exceptions being asked to tighten the bolts and the scale. it seems that we are getting these quite often, which i have voiced before, indicates that something is out of black. -- out of whack. the one thing in the copious free time of the department is

the possibly take a look at the projects coming forward weather have been no requests for these changes, against those who have requested changes to see if there is some kind of pattern that has developed or some kind of trend that is going on. i am not criticizing the current project but this is one of many that seems to be coming before us. and maybe at some future time, if we could get this. i'd like to speak to the process that commissioner moore was talking about. and thinking the neighborhood organizations. it did not make everybody happy but this is just the way that these things always worked out. for those who spoke passionately against the project because of its size and scale, they may be unhappy with the stance that the neighborhood organization has taken.