would turn it into a grand boulevard. that seems like a home-run solution for that portion ofç e high-speed rail. as somebody involved in land use in that area, we want to work collaborative we in any way we can to bring that kind of thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. i believe hester pinpointed the local problem. i do now the director and staff have been working diligently on it and have come with some possible solutions, as murphy w3just mentioned. i have been in a few of the meetings here and there over this, particularly with people in dog patch and the crow hill -- petro hill -- petero hilçre,

and groups from mission bay. that is going to move forward, only if the projectç itself mos forward. i also have been fortunate enough to have been on high- speed rail in europe and asia, and it works. it works fantastically. i see no reason why it would not work here. commissioner more -- moore? commissioner moore:ç i am generally in support of the statements made. w3i do support the level of detail they are touching on, whicht( i assume would be impli, that does not only apply to the

final product of high speed rail, but applies to the electrified portions we currently have as well, because the two pieces are part of the same strategy. what i wouldç hope is that -- i am not trying to hector the pr))q(u -- is this the way of high speed longer than expected, with the transbay terminal as the endpoint for high speed regional rail -- with the commencement and building up of the terminal, that would not only occur at higher speeds. higher speeds is enough to start doing it. commissioner borden:ç i wantedo concur with commissioner moore's statement that we should say in the resolution we want the spurs built into the transbayç termil in anticipation of the highest speed, but being able to

accommodate the speed weç are t now. obviously, the entire terminal projectç is only justifiable wh high-speed rail. there are so many other wonderful things about that project. i think the real key is we bring it to downtown sanç francisco, with the number ofç commuters n the 280. occasionally, i have to go down, and even with the issues around t(caltrain, çit reminds us how important this is. caltrain is still in a precarious position with a non- dedicatedq there was a report that came out that it use -- if you got rid of it, you would haveñr toç add 2 lanes of traffic to 280. you cannot do that. it is critical we support high speed rail and the electrification ofxd caltrain,

because we need it. even in a downç economy,ç the traffic is terrific between san francisco and san jose. with our airport, we have this complication of the runways, whenever there is fog. landings and takeoffs are reduced 50%. that is because we get an fha extension because our runways are too close to each other -- an faa ex exception -- çexemption i]because our runwas are too close to each other. with the fog and the traffic, we should make a stronger statement about why this is a critical issue for the state at large for them to consider. maybe you can talk a little bit about what is happening with the city response. in the packet, it said we want to get all the different city agencies to make kind of a joint

coordinated recommendation. i would like to know what we are looking at. çjohn rahaim: çthere have been a number of letters cosigned by department directors, namely myself, the director of theq transportation authority, and the redevelopment agency, which address a number of concerns, one of them being a concern we identified a year and a half ago, which is the intersection of 67 and lowering high speed rail. that is not the only issue. there are a number of issues like that that have been identified along the corridor, and a number of issues with stations proposed through the city, where theç trains and to the city. there are a number of the tablatures i believe we have if not, i am happy to bring us back to you. there hasñr been a lot of work between multiple agencies in the cityi], our response to the

current state of affairs. what is driving this resolution today is the interest the city has in seeing this fast start program as a potentialiñ faster getting the project off the ground. çóthe city is working with other communitiesç along the corrido, including san jose, to try to get some concurrence about that program. we think there is a potentialç window of opportunity hereok to actually get some concurrence along the peninsula for the first time about where we could be headed. the city position all along has been that it is very important that we address the problems identified and get the transbay as opposed to fourth and king. çthere(h@s been discussionok at stopping it. we are very concerned about that.

there is an opportunity here to start really working on this early first phase. commissioner antonini:ç0h agree with all the other commissioners'ç comments, most specifically that caltrain in theç context of the high-speed rail project is a separate entity, and an important one at the present time, one that needs to be viewed in and of itself. whatever we can do with electrification and completion of the connection toç the transbayi]ç çterminal is realy important. ridership will be enhanced even with the present train if people can easilyç access that link to the peninsula and the south bay from part, from unique, from other places it is more difficult to do now. it requires a longer trip. and of course it would be great if we could sometime in the

future have a hearing that brings us up-to-date with what is going on. i certainly support the seventh and 16th street grade separation, with the train instead of theç treats -- stres being in the tunnel. it seems it could be done easily and quickly. maybe i am missing something. but it is easier than trying to lower or raise the street. that would seem to be the way to go. i would support also at other placesçó up and down the peninsula, where it may at some cost to the project but it is a lot safer and a lot better, if i could have a grade separation. and maybe the closing of some of the crossings that are not as critical. that would be ai] decision that would have to be made in individual towns. commissioner sugaya: i do not think we are spending billions of dollars on transbay to have

high-speed rail and at fourth and townsend. i may be the only person who thinks this way, but i think communitiesç along the entire route, including san francisco, may need to make some compromises and sacrifices if this thing is ever going to get built. all the noise that has been generated along the peninsula -- it is likei used to live dow. and we used to cross the tracks at least threeç or four times a week. çso i understand the issues of high speed coming down the existing right of way for the road. at the same time, i think if this major project is ever going to get billed, it is going to have to -- what is the right word? çoklocali] communities may havo sacrifice some things. commissioner moore: and again

the devil is in the details. you have visub& impact because of overhead lines. you have potentially the issue of noise impacts from the track system, and depending what wheels you run on your electrical train. but thereok are examples around the world where it has been done on a large, regionalç scale successfully. çi assume we can learn from others on this. commissioner moore: do we have a motion? commissioner antonini: move to support the resolution. >>t( emotion on the floor is for approval of the resolutionç --a motion on the floor is for approval of theç resolution, te policy statement before you. commissionert( antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore:ç aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner moore: aye -- president miguel: aye. ç>> the motion passes

unanimously. you are on item 84401 grove street. -- you are on item eight for 401 grove street. >> there was authorization for a project to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new mixed use development containing 63 dwelling units and approximately 5000 square feet of retail space, 32 residential spaces, three commercial spaces, and 2 carfareç spaces - car share spaces. six were depicted in a tandem configuration, which would xdresult in 39 residential spac. staff failed to identify these as panda spaces, and the written application by sponsor indicated permitted by the planning cgdd. therefore the conditions of

approval limited the total number of parking spaces in an amount that did not account for the seven additional parking spaces that would result from the tandem configuration. theç sponsor is requesting thee seven additional spaces, for a total of 39 residential parking spaces and 44 spaces for the overall development. this item was continued from the curing of generic 12. accessory parking is not retired for residential uses. ç-- this itemç was continued m the hearing of the january 12. there is a principal permitted maximum of four dwellingç spacs per unit. there may be 0.75 spaces, subject to certain conditions. çstaff believes this would prioritizeç motorized vehicles and degrade the pedestrian çenvironment. multiple policiesxd in the genel

plan and the market and octavia plan envisioned a built environment that discouragesxd private automobiles as the primary mode of travel in walkable and transit-rich neighborhoods. staff has received one letter from the hayes valley neighborhood association. the letter reiterates they support the project as a whole, but the group is opposed to the request for parking below the levels principally permitted by the planning code. staff recommends the commission does approve the request to amend the previous authorization to allow the additionalç parkig spaces. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. presidentç miguel: project gsor? >> my name is david baker. as i said last time, i am in the unenviable position of asking

for more parking. but in fact i would like to say that iw3 feel i would like to go through the history of this a little bit. it isç true that under the current planning code we exceed the 0.5, but thisok was a use permit that wasç modified. this is the original use permit. i do notq that is what dan solomon's office put together. this reqtust had approved five tandem spaces. just so you will be really concludes --ç confused, and ths is the thing about plans -- there are six tandem space is shown on the drawings that were approved, and five were listed. at that time, a tandem space consisted of two parking spaces that were not individually accessible. itç was counted as one parking

space since only one owner could have it. some people with tandem spaces, a lot of traffic. other people, it is where they keep their maserati. we did not know about the change in the definition, so we thought a tandem space is one space. çwe submitted this guy, whichçd seven tandem spaces. we just said seven tandem spaces. we did not add to the total, because we thought it counted as one. this was approved. i understand whenxd people approved as -- when people approve plans, they do not count every parking space. maybe you should. çxdmaybe y parking spaces than you need to. we submitted our site permit to theç$rá said seven

tandems bases. just really confuse things, or notice of restrictions says we are approved for 35 independent the accessible spaces. çwhy is that independently accessible, when a tandem space would not count in that definition? that is the way it was written. i am here as a guy who removed my garageç. i do not count a tandem space as two. we haveç a pocket development. we are on our fourth project with the architect. i talked him into a bike. he now writes his kid to school. he has a beat her bike. he is a local guy.

they bid their pro-forma is based on what i think was approved. it was not approved because the çdefinition got changed. they would be really happy, since we have seven, six, and five -- we will take for bang -- we will take four, please. i hope we do not have a big argument. i am available for questions and i am very sorry about this. ç>> i am with pocket developme, the project sponsor. i will try not to repeat too much what david said. we are very excited about this project and very grateful for the input we got from the staff, the commission, and the neighborhood. we are frustrated by the uncertainty. seven months after unanimous approval, we are still trying to establish whether we can build what was shown on the plans. we are a small business trying to make this project happen in a

very difficult environment. we bought the site from a bank that had foreclosed on the last developer. we bought it with entitlements, which includes five pennant spaces. we've got approved the plan. we brought it backok with seven spaces. it was unanimously approved last july. stuff never raised a concern with the space shown on the plans, and thesparking table. they never told us the definition of a pan and space had changed. we still do not know when that happened -- of a tandem space had changed. we still do not know when that happened. we think it was internal. this was approved twice at the commission. we think that should count for something. çówe would be happy to compromie on four spaces. we would just like to move forward and get this going. president miguel: is their public comment on this item? >> on behalf of the housing

action coalition,çó we reviewed this project and i have to say we missed it to. i am out on thin ice. it is not a question about the project itself. we loved it. i should note that city car share çand the by commission ae always fighting to make sure their interests are heard, getting alternatives to auto use. i should also say clearly that the housing action coalition supports them. we get the direction of where things are going in the market and octavia plan. it really is hard to justify çparking over limits. cu-'s are getting tougher and tougher to justify for texas parking. that being said,ç perhaps you n make a deal to the extent you have flexibility in

grandfathering or the extent that financial projections were made on an earlier design. hopefully this situation will not come up much more often. this seems to beok an outlet and special circumstance. oklove the project. hope you can make the deal. president miguel: public comment is closed. i went over somexd of the background of this,ç because i was totally confused as well, and i do notçó know when the concept or definition of tandem changed. but if it did it was sometime between when the project came to çus and was approved twice and the present time. i, for one,ç would be, in this instance, willing to go forward. çw3commissioner antonini: thank you. i think this is sort of in my

opiniont( -- sort of using a technicality to try to limit the ñrparking, whereas we did twice approve something that the parking was there in may tan -- in a tandem form. nobody spotted it, perhaps. the only language i can't find it is no moreç than 35 independently-accessible parking spacesok. even in their ask for 44, there are only 32 independently- accessible parking spaces for residents. another seven would be tandem, 3 would be car-share, and three would be commercial. a little history. in 2008, the project we approved was 61 units with 39 parking spaces. the project that came back was differently configured than that. but it did in fact have all of

those parking places up there. under market octavia, but conditionalñr use, planning commission can grant up to three out of four, 75% parking. that would be up to 48. the 44 is still below what can be granted. but i think our granting should be only procedural at this point, because we already have approved it. what we are doing is approving something we did before. to try to limit them after the fact is why sometimes we get a bad reputation. t(the project goes forward, designed a certain way, and gets approved. even if it was an oversight, that was approved and is what should be allowed. just as an aside about alternate means of transportation, it is always encouraged. but realistically, when we look at auto ownership and usage, we have to look at projects we have

approved that our recent. we should look at these and see how many of these people who have bought or are renting these actually have auto ownership. i think we would find it is higher than the figure we usually use, which is figures of the number of auto owners in a neighborhood. that is people who have been there for many years. some are elderly. some have never had cars. it is not a valid thing. an employee of mine has had a car for a year. she has to part it because she has no parking placeñr on lomba. çbroken into four times. on the weekend, it was total by a car crashing into it at 4:00 in the morning on a sunday. if you have a car, you do not want it out on the street. until we are able to properly police break-ins and find a way to keep drivers from a radically crashing into parked cars, not toçç mention the damaged carst

when they are parked outside -- if you have a car, you would like a place to park it. i would support allowing what we approved before, which would be the 44 places. commissioner moore: i need to take a slightly different tack at this, particularly because what the commission approved is in the written motion. we approved a building with 63 dwelling units, 32 of st. residential parking spaces, and three commercial parking spaces, for a total of 5000 square feet of commercial space. never ever do i sit and count the parking spaces, ever. i assumeçó that the architect wo submits the documents knows about the consistency of drawings. but ultimately there is a written motion which covers what sr'g document for a

çthe drawing at the stage we ae approving this isç mostly schematic. it is not yet at working drawing level, nor is it being presented to the building department for u!the next step of approval, whe the building department relies on the written terms ofq motion. i would like to particularly talk to the architect. çarchitect baker has quite a fw i]buildings in the market octava plan in front of the commission, including other projects across theq talk about the desire of this commission to approve projects with 0.5 parking. it is part of your own philosophy, being an active bike t(rider, to support the transit

first policy of this commission. çmany of your project -- i am t playing professional here. many of your projects have enamored the commission because you are consistent in the way you are presentingç that to us. you also know the drawings which you provide need to reflect that. in any building, there is lots of dead space, particularly when it comes to mixed use and multiuse buildings, where there are awkwardç configurations whe tandem spaces, indicating and access over an easement to a parking space, are pretty standard. çyou have them in almost every residential building unless you design a slab building where you can count exactly parking spaces per unit and have them all in all in theñr area,ç delineated. xdtandem spacesi] are coincidenl

to access on the below ground level. they are left over spaces designated as tandem. i believe it is not the drawing or counting the drawing does not drive this commission, but the staff analysis is this project came forward in a notable way with 0.5. staff analysis is indeed what has to guide how this was approved, asç well as çunderstanding the special circumstances. i cannot single out a project past the fact and judge it on a different level than when i approve the project. >> i think part of the confusion comes with that when there was a parking minimum that a tandem space did not count.

it seems like it was a long time ago, but it was just a few years. if you had 10 apartments, you i]had to have 10 parking spaces. some of those could be tandem and it did not count as to. people started thinking of it as a space where you could stick another carq that got clarified to being to spaces somewhere between the original use permit proposal and the finalç period to make it en more complicated, i think, is this has two use permits. one is referred to as a modification. it says modification of a use permit on it. 1ei think we are splitting hai. all i can say is a totally support the idea of 0.5 parking. in some places, it is 0.65. it varies from district to district. i think it is great the

development community has taken that on. i think my clients -- we would have made other plans. we would have figured something out differently if we had known at the time. t(they made theirzv projections, buying the property. it is not a big deal. it is $200,000. and when you are getting the building built -- commissioner moore: thank you for explaining what you just did. i live in a building where there are two tandem spaces that are only labeled as access easements. in a residential building, and it might be against the code, if somebody has somebody coming over for dinner, somebody rings the bell and says, "do you mind if somebody parks for a couple of hours in that tandem space?" that is the