wanted to their individual neighborhoods to be respected and we want the same here. this is a group of neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> is any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live a few blocks away from this project site. i am here to support the project. this is the type of project that the market octavia plan envisioned. i will temper my support with a copy out. the one to one parking is inappropriate. i am here to defend the plan.

neighbors from throughout the area weighed in on this plan and i want to to defend the outcome of that plan. when we started to create exceptions to the plan, we watered down the plan. one of the important aspects is parking. we are trying to create an area that is walkable, safe for pedestrians and bicycles. i respect the project sponsor but kitchens to not have the impact on the neighborhood that automobile traffic does. this area is heavily served by public transit. you have haight street come up bart is within walking district

-- distance. this is on three major bicycle routes. you have a lot of pedestrian traffic. the more you add to this area, you can see the work here. we have a lot of progress coming on line. the more cars we add, the less successful this plan will be. there are many projects coming on line here. there is one across the street that has five spaces per unit. and as many to or three-bedroom units. there are several projects over at you can in and market.

these all fall within the guidelines of the market and octavia area. i am adamant about defending the plan. no matter how we got there, we are there. >> thank you. >> i am one of the residence and that they were talking about. that actually took this off the website.

i was listening to their comments and i have to respectfully disagree with one of the speakers who says that the only controversy is parking and they had worked in collaboration with the neighbors. we are right next door. i never talked to them or had a conversation with them about this project. we have got all the notices said things like that. normally, i am not able to come to these things. i have lived there for almost 15 years. i was concerned when i hear things like they're going to improve the landscape and make it a line. when i look at the pictures of what they have in the present structure, that needs to be more of a line. this is sort of an upgrade that goes to market street.

i don't really understand how that helps them. the other thing is that they talked a bit about making sure that they took care of the clinton park neighbors with their lights. my windows are all along the side and that will be the end of that light. they are moving it up several stories. i am just above the line. this is like looking over a table. i am concerned about that. my last concern is what all of my neighbors share. i love the building next door. it is really beautiful. i and stand at the need for more housing. i do not understand why the cannot look at the other

options that are preserving the historic facades. this is very beautiful. this is run down because no one is taking care of it. i hope they will reconsider that. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i currently live in south beach. it is wonderful to see families with children that are living in the neighborhood, living in the larger units. the other thing that is required to raise children is an

automobile. there are soccer games, after school affairs, all kinds of things. the reason i was attracted to become a small investor was the opportunity to support family housing in san francisco. to see a project and incurs the developer to put in the larger units beyond what is required. this is a little bit of setting. i am not aware of all of the technicalities. one to one is a reasonable request. let's give families with children back into san francisco. that is what i came to say. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> i just wanted to remind you that within the past few weeks since the materials were transmitted to you, as you should have received a revised ceqa findings motion and that is the one that will be adopted here. >> i agree with most of the speakers. this is an excellent project. this is over 80%. the below market rate on site, there are steps to save a tree. they have put in a low-grade parking which is expensive to do. some of the costs have to be

justified. neighborhood support, very sensitive. what bothers me, i had a conversation with michael smith yesterday, this concept transit first means an adequate residential parking. that is not what it means in my mind. what it means is to encourage public transportation, to encourage people to use it, and to encourage people to better public transportation. it does not mean that you cannot provide for the automobiles that the vast majority of us are owed. if we don't have parking presidentially, we will go round and round in circles until we find street parking.

instead of working on studies, i was circling around sacramento trying to find a place to park. when people comment from outside san francisco or inside san francisco. one of the things we talked about with payroll tax or other disincentives and public-school problems and perhaps crime, they say. lack of parking is the thing that they always bring up. san francisco is not alone. other jurisdictions go to the extremes in one direction or the other. my family has property out in the east bay. the particular building which is commercial occupies one quarter of the entire lot. we asked about putting in more units.

they would like to drive next to a place and what two steps. we have to find a way to go towards the middle and i would be supportive of project sponsors desire for one to one parking. there was a lot of discussion during the fabrication of the plan. the different segments, one had different ideas about parking. everyone wanted one to one parking. the supervisors changed it to a lower ratio and made it all- inclusive for the entire group of neighborhood called market are octavia. they did allow us conditional use to make a produce of one-to- one parking. i am in favor of that. i don't know if it is

appropriate to make a motion. for the conditional use approval, i believe the motion that the staff has has the lower ratio. can we amended that? >> know. -- no. i don't know if it is a purpose to make motions for both of the two parts. >> i move for consideration. i would hope that we could move

for consideration of adoptions of findings in the california environmental quality act to approve. >> second. >> let's call the question on that now. >> you will need to amend the findings to reflect the parking changes. >> that is in the parking part. >> of the city attorney can clarify. >> commissioners, the sequel findings described the project as including 0.75 parking. -- the ceq findings described the project. thw ceqa findings will have to

reflect a conditional use permit. >> at this motion, it would be to approve it with language that addresses the higher ratio. would that be appropriate? >> no. >> the city attorney would have to advise it. >> i would need a few minutes to look at the findings. >> let's continue this question. >> i am not sure why we separated the two. i was involved in the market octavia plan. this is because of my

participation in the central freeway octavia boulevard task force. very very truthfully, south of market was not to be considered. this was not even talk about. even to the end, it was barely talked about. certainly not heavily participated in. the second portion passed by a bare handful of people. these are very different neighborhoods. separate neighborhood organizations. i'm amazed that this is something that if they were that interested in it, we have not heard more objections.

if there was not a number of three-bedroom units, i would not be saying what i'm going to say now. i would support the higher ratio. this is only the number of three bedroom units. i am one of those people that rarely considers two bedroom units to be three units. having raised three kids, having seven grandchildren, i'm stan wood family units are and how they work. i also understand that an automobile not used for a daily commute to go to work, but used to carry your children around town. to carry the equipment that sort of adheres to children nowadays

much less when i started my family. but a lot of it is safety authorize or required equipment. even to get two or three kids out to golden gate park. you would not take public transportation. i challenge you to do it. it does not work. the concept of one to one parking, i do not endorse because of daily use, that type of thing necessarily. i do believe it is necessary if we are going to encourage families. i would support a motion on both of these items. originally, i thought we would not need it. if it was not for the three-

bedroom units, i would not do it. >> i am in full support of the department's recommendation. we support our own work and our efforts to really understand the city at large an attempt to densify the city more towards a sustainable city of the future. we need to work on both ends of the candle which is to reduce parking and increase density. as long as the code is absent of requiring that of the three or two bedroom units are occupied by families, all of these large units can be rented by three or more people to really accommodate across -- for me, the argument of three bedrooms and modifying parking based on that does not hold up for me.

i strongly support the consistency by which the department is indeed a supporting their own plans in which much time and personal sacrifice was made to deliver the plan and i cannot support -- i can only support what the department is recommending. >> i wanted to thank the staff for actually doing work that is consistent with the spirit that i feel was ultimately present in the discussions around the market and octavia plan. we sat through ours, ours, months, months, deliberating here are around a lot more than just the parking in the plan.

i don't really agree that it was overwhelming in either direction, necessarily but certainly there was a lot of discussion and disagreement, ultimately, as it relates to the issue of parking and transit- oriented development and smart growth and some of the other issues that we discussed here. those were pretty brutal hearings as i remember them. there's a lot of grief and work that everyone did. it was not a unanimous vote ultimately among commissioners but the commissioners might have decided in favor of one to one parking. this was not unanimous, a couple did not support that and were more in agreement with the decision made at the board as it relates to parking.

i know a lot of families -- i do believe there is a high enough ratio of parking in this project, there will be the opportunity for families or individuals who sometimes purchase multiple unit bedrooms, sometimes there is nothing that mandates the two bedroom units go to families. i know of plenty of instances where individuals by those units either with another person, and two singles living in this space or one person who divides the additional bedroom space into offices or something like that. the ability to buy a unit with parking does present itself here. i know plenty of families who prefer not to drive cars. they are environmentally-

focused. they don't want to contribute to feel cool motor trips. their preference is to live sustainably. i am sure there are some families that prefer paying a lower cost on a unit that does not have parking and would maybe allow for a teacher or a couple of parents with the child to afford a unit where -- this is unbundled. still, they would not have to deal with that additional cost and headache. i know families who cycled around the city and take public transportation. there are many people who are not interested in owning cars. i will not be supporting any motion that would request

conditional use on parking. i like the project, i think it is a good project. it is too bad that there was not a -- it would have been nice. i support the project. i know -- when we were struggling, that is where i stand. if there is a motion ultimately made that supports the staff recommendation, i can support that. >> the city attorney has had a chance -- in our description, it talks about the constructed four-story residential building.

>> in this motion, there is a typo that says 37, that should read 28. that is consistent throughout the rest of the motion. we have found a little will -- a little bit of inconsistencies. whatever you should decide which way to go on the parking, we will make sure that the motion accurately reflects the parking count. >> there has been some some confusion. >> may be the city attorney to give us some elimination on this.

whatever the commission's decision is, both of those will be consistent and will correct whichever one is necessary. the planning commission can give direction and it is fairly simple corrections. >> if i am interpreting that correctly, i went to separate the 8 key. >> there's a lot of confusion. >> if they were split, my motion which was made before they stand, i don't know. this is described up to 37

units. i think that building a garages not cheap. having fewer parking places and not necessarily diminish the amount of loss per unit. the excavation has to happen with the space will be virtually the same, no matter how many parking spaces you put in it. because you provide residential parking, this is not require everyone to have and use a car. we cannot link those together. this is unbundled. that gives the opportunity for people to do it. what you do buy restricted parking is you eliminate a class of people who have cars and do not want to spend their time looking for parking or paying additional costs for parking.

it does discriminate against any limited people that do have cars. our policies are misstated and maybe we have to look at the housing element or the general plan. >> commissioner borden. >> this is really close to market street. and you have the units, i would imagine that some of the people might not have cars or might not want to pay for parking their cars. you can get to 20 spaces and be completely doable and have spaces for people to buy two if they would like to buy into them going back to what the commissioner said, i have lots of friends who live in multiple bedroom units who do not have

kids and are not families. these units tend not to be families. i think this is not really a genuine argument to say that they will live here, maybe they will be. i don't see any reason to not stick with the plan. there is plenty of units. muni cannot function adequately. there is a constant burden and cycle where it is not functioning and therefore people decide to drive. if it was not so close to market street, the fact we had all of

these other projects in this area, it might be different. in this particular case, this is not convincing to me that we need to have one to one parking. >> i wanted to make a comment. unfortunately, but this is then well-designed project. i think that this project in a very sensitive way it goes along the corners. the where the project looks at issues described is one of the most desirable projects. also how it is presented.