other architects to include packages. this is a good i want to acknowledge the design. there are many things about this project which i find quite exemplary, including putting affordable units in this location into the project at this particular time in our economy is really noteworthy. however, as i said, i need to stick with my thoughts about the .75. there is nothing i can do. this project looks into the future in many, many wonderful ways. i wish i could convince you that .75 will make your project still a very successful one. president olague: commissioner sugaya.

commissioner to follow up on the comment, since we're on the design i'd like to commend the architect and the response to the surrounding neighborhood, the voluntary setbacks introduced and contributing to the rear yard. the feeling of open space is really great and i like the project overall. so we're back to parking. ã9qj? ahd the project sponsors' attorney has put in the packet that we received, or the folder that we received, an article about parking and has specifically highlighted a sentence here. this is in an article called anti-congestion parking technologies. and it says according to the u.p.a., circling for parking accounts for 30% -- about 30%

of driving in san francisco which is one of the most contested -- congested cities in the u.s. the article tries to address the issue by saying there are new technologies coming along to try to reduce the 30% level, which kind of to me goes against allowing for one to one parking. and so that, i think along with what commissioner borden's reasoning is, too close to transit, i have to disagree with the project sponsor that that doesn't matter. it matters a lot, i think. and this is one of the most, i think of the projects we've seen lately, this is as close to transit as you can get. and we've had some others that have been touted as being close to transit or at least a block or two or even three blocks away. and i think here you're pretty much right on top of a number of different alternatives, not just the bus lines.

and so i think -- i did have one other question for the city attorney. i don't remember from the e.i.r. -- i assumed that the e.i.r., the preferred project, had one to one parking in it and that was what was analyzed. >> right. commissioner sugaya: if we go down to .75, then, there's no issue. if we went up, there might have been an issue, right? [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: i guess i've answered my own question. there's no issue. that's all i have on this at the moment. commissioner garcia: commissioner antonini. president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: it's a hike to get to the station or van ness and some parts might not be the most pleasant areas to walk to.

what are you going to do, get on the bus and ride a block to to get there in a driving rain storm. whether you have kids or not, you have to be realistic what people look for when they buy condominiums or residencess. so i am not favorable of the local parking ratio. i'm going to make a move to continue, and i'll tell you why. i think there's a little confusion here as to we have often in the past, we have had motions where we bring forth two separate motions. we bring force a motion with the higher ratio of parking and the lower ratio of parking. because if we were to approve and intent to improve with the higher ratio, we couldn't approve it today and would have to bring it back on another day anyway. is that correct? >> commissioner antonini, i think the ceqa findings, if the commissioner were to approve the 37 parking spaces, the ceqa

findings are correct. i think staff would like the commission to adopt a motion of intent on the c.u. approval so that staff could go back and correct and change some of the findings because the c.u. findings are based on the lower amounts of parking. if the commission approves the project as recommended by the department with the lower amount of parking, the ceqa findings, it's just a question of correcting the two paragraphs about parking as well as the title. so that you could -- the commission could just approve the ceqa findings with that direction, and that's easily correctable. and the c.u. motion could be adopted as is with the lower amounts of parking. commissioner antonini: and if the motion were to pass with the higher amount of parking, could that be voted on today? >> the commission could adopt a

motion of intent. i think the staff prefers the commission adopt a motion of intent so that those findings could be changed to reflect the higher levels of parking. commissioner antonini: my motion for continuance is based on the fact more than likely there would be a second hearing on this, too, unless it happened with both motions -- >> no. commissioner antonini: kid make the motion if nobody seconds it. they don't have to second it. but i would move to continue the item until the next available date. president olague: i wanted to comment we do this all the time. if the staff comes before us with a c.u., and we adopt a different vote, if our vote is different than the c.u. that came before us, then we always adopt an intention to do something other than -- this is not something unique to this project. in other words, we do this all the time. so i don't see a -- if there's a second to continue, i don't know if there is, but i wanted to point out that this is not

unique to how we do things here. and what the city attorney -- commissioner antonini: maybe you could give me a date. >> the first open date i'm showing is june 2. and commissioner antonini -- commissioner antonini: continue to june 2 would be my motion. president olague: is there a second? there isn't a second. >> the motion dies. president olague: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: i'm not sure. this is a tough one and confusing one. i think it's a really handsome project. i congratulate the architect on it, i'm in support of it and think it will be a successful project regardless of what the parking comes out to be and will compliment the other project we approved just across the street and it's going to enhance what i think is a great sculpt chur art piece there on dough lower es -- on dolores in the corner. as far as parking, looking at the mix of units, i am

supportive of the one to one and think it's a higher end, higher quality project, and it's going to call for that in this particular case. a lot of discussion has been around kids and youth and baby strollers and all that, but i think i can foresee this particular building project, having more mature people who may need cars as well and may not be able to hop on a bike to and from work or wherever they go. again, i'm not sure where we're all at but i'm in support of one to one ratio. president olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: yeah. i think i made my point. the f line actually goes on market street so it's not even a block and you have a block away an underground station that takes you downtown, plus you can go out to noye valley and anywhere in the city is transit rich and there's few places that parallel this. i think the market octavia plan

was a social experiment to a certain extent. the neighbor neighborhoods said they were willing to take development but not willing to take cars. as a commissioner i want to support the experiment that will hopefully prove we can be a more sustainable society in the future and i think this is what has been voted upon and what's been decided and how this community has embraced development, and contrary to other parts of the city where we can't get them to embrace development at all, i want to support this social experiment we've all agreed to and with that i move to approve the ceqa findings and the actual project. >> commissioners, just for point of clarity for me, there's a motion on the floor from commissioner antonini that -- for approval of the project. for one to one parking and was seconded by commissioner miguel. so it's a valid motion on the floor.

commissioner moore: commissioner antonini made a motion to continue but the other motion -- [inaudible] >> it still stands. president olague: thanks for that. >> the motion still stand. that motion is on the floor. that's for approval of one to one parking. so i'm asking themaker of the motion s is that still valid? commissioner antonini: that's still valid. might as well vote on it. we take positions. >> at that point you separated the items. president olague: because there was so much confusion i was hearing from people. >> we were only voting on a, a motion to approve with one to one parking. president olague: right. so on that motion, commissioner, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> no. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> no. >> the motion fails on a 3-4

feet have commissioner moore, borden, sugaya and olague voting against. now, commissioners, you can do something else. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i'd like to suggest since we've clarified the issue of parking we take the ceqa findings with the corrected wording regarding the lower parking and approval of the project as one motion which i'm making based on staff recommendation. but before i make the motion, i'd like to make an additional comment. i'm personally very disturbed that the issue of parking is starting to involve the discussion of income, creed, and color. and i'm very disturbed about that because -- that the project is a better project deserving higher parking is something i personally do not want to participate in that discussion. it is very upsetting to me, and i think it's inappropriate for this commission to let a policy

discussion about the importance of cars in this community detour into talking about there might be better projects which deserve parking and others which don't. i don't believe that the market octavia plan is created around a social policy which has shades of who deserves and who doesn't, but it's a forward-looking document which i think a community, which according to the well-phrased sentences of commissioner borden is a social experiment and environmental experiment which we all approve for that reason. so any discussion which starts to shift that into something else, i believe is not appropriate for this commission to have. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i tend to disagree. that wasn't my interpretation of what was being discussed here. we oftentimes will look at projects and realistically look at projects that may be, for example, for lower income seniors, and we think there's probably a small chance they're going to have cars and

therefore we approve them with little or no parking. and also, we look at projects that probably will be condominiums, may be selling at a higher price point. and the chances of people having cars, although this isn't always the case, is probably somewhat higher. so i think that's all we've been saying in this. it doesn't mean you would give more parking just based on income levels, but you look realistically at the -- what kind of project you're looking at and try to forecast how many people would have cars. and the reality is, as was pointed out, oftentimes car ownership is something that people have at all income levels because it's really necessary to have a car. so i didn't hear that at all. i disagree. commissioner moore: perhaps i overheard it. i couldn't stop from overhearing it. maybe it's my own sensitivity and we need to come to terms about cars in this society around a different set of objectives. but i apologize if you felt i

was attacking you. commissioner antonini: you didn't hear it from me. president olague: i believe there are people from all income levels, some who prefer cars and some who don't. you can't make an assumption. it's a lifestyle choice and a lot more complicated, values based, all kinds of issues why people own cars, you know. maybe some day we'll have a hearing on that and be here until 3:00 in the morning discussing it. >> only after a year and a half. president olague: yeah, after we're both gone. july of 2012. ok. is there a second? i don't have a second to the motion. president olague: second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the project per staff recommendation with .75. and that is for both the ceqa findings and the conditional

use request. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> no. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passes on a vote of 4-3 with commissioners antonini, fong, and miguel voting against. on the variance. >> thank you. dan snyder acting zoning administrator here on behalf of scott sanchez. first off, commissioners, i'd like to close the public hearing on the variance as well. what i would like to do in this case is take the matter under advisement. i would say that i am inclined to grant the rear yard and front setback variances. there's some unanswered questions with respect to the dwelling unit exposure variance, so i look forward to

working with the sponsor and with staff to get these questions answered. just really quickly, some housekeeping matters. no decision is final on these variances until a letter is issues. that letter brings with it a 10-day window during which it may appeal to the board of appeals and if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please give their name and contact information to the secretary or to staff and we'll make sure you get a copy of it. thank you. >> ok. thank you very much. commissioners, you are in recess until 5:00 p.m.