>> 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 way sometimes these leftover spaces are being used, without being designated full- time parking spaces. >> my house in mission had a four car tandem space which i have converted to a pedestrian passage. it is only 7 ft. wide. when i had the car, i had to climb out the driver's side window, because it could not open the door enough. my daughter was going to high school and she had a car. my wife had a car. we all had cars. none of us haveç cars now. that is neither here nor there. we support the 0.5. çñrwe think we got this approvd with some number of tandems basis as a historical long-term thing. we would like to proceed with

that. i will say in the wholeç thing right now -- if we have got these spaces, we are going to build a wall and say you can never part here. if they go and tear the wall down, and somebody might park there -- iç think this would ba nice thing to be clearer. i feel terrible being here. i just retired from the board of the bicycle coalition. you know. i am a bad person. i am sorry. commissioner antonini: mr. baker, sorry. what i am hearing and my interpretation is that you would like to have 44 if we can do that. >> i think everybody -- we are happy with the idea of sacrifice. we are coming down from the 7,

6, 5 to 4. that is in the spirit of san francisco. we do not followç the book exactly hear a lot. commissioner antonini: your design -- you are going to have that space in there for some years or another use, whether it be tandem parking -- >> i think it becomes a storage closet. commissioner antonini: it might keep access -- accidents down, because there is a little more maneuvering for people who might be parking, have invented a lot of cars in narrow spaces. >> san francisco garages should get a prizet( for the spaces to get these vehicles in. commissioner antonini: i am goingw3 to make a motion. i willxd make a motion and see f we get a second. that would be to allow the 44 total, which consists of the following. çç32w3 single individually

accessible residential parking places. 7 which would be considered tandem. 2 car share. 3 commercial. that is whatç would be approvi, which is what is in keeping with what is actually there. commissioner borden: 2 car share? 7 m is 39. çit comes to 44. president miguel: is there a second? >> without a second, the motion dies. commissioner sugaya: i7s have a question for staff or somebody, or maybe the commission even. our commercial spaces considered to be more egregiousx4rju impactful? i do not think that is a word.

çthan residentiali] spaces? >> the intent of commercial spaces is for short-term parking to support the retail district. there would be turned over. commissioner sugaya: the number we have at 3 exactly fits the square footage being proposed for this building? >> that is correct. that is the right amount for the quantity of commercial space. commissioner sugaya: a second question, as long as you are at the podium. the languageçó "no more than 35 independently accessible off streetç parking spaces, excludg carç share" -- doesñr that ince the 32 plus the three commercial? >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: i was going to try a compromise, but i don't think it will go anywhere. that would be toxd take their spaces 8, 9, and 10, and convert

them to commercial and allow 4 tandem spaces. president miguel: is that a motion? commissionerñr borden: what does that do? i don't understand. commissioner sugaya: it reduces the number of residential spaces. iç think it is a net of one. çt(i]is that right? the you understand what i am saying here? -- do you understand what i am saying here? >> it would be that three existing residentialq approved, would be converted to commercial use, for a total of six. commissioner sugaya: it would be five. no, six. >> and there would be

additional tandems bases allowed? commissioner sugaya: we would allow them another four spaces. proposalt what they are asking to date a little bit different from the original request to ask for space for four more residential vehicles, essentially. i would want to do a quick analysis to make sure the six commercial spaces that are suggested by your proposal would be allowed by our code, because there is a parking tap on the amount of commercial space as well. commissioner sugaya: i am not sure it is going to go anywhere. commissioner antonini:ç i am going to make an alternate motion. let us go with 41 total. you have 32 residential, three commercialç, which isç what is required by code, i believe. those would be independent the

accessible, bringing us to 35. then weç have 2 car share çwhh would not be independently accessible, and 4 tandem. the reason for my motion is it is a lot more practical to grant somebody a place to put their vehicle if theyç live there thn a commercial space which is only going to be used when somebody is doing something. as mr. gaius pointed out, he might need some sort of special interpretation of the elbow commercial space to even allow that. you are depriving three more people of a place to put their car. i go with the 41. president miguel: i would second that. çit is an obvious compromise, which probably satisfies hardly anyone. but i think the confusion on this particular item calls for it.

commissioner moore: i can hold until this motion is through. commissioner borden: this is really hard for me. time and time again, we have heard cases for the market octavia plan. we have been very strong about the 0.5 parking. i feel sick about not observing that. i am veryç sympathetic, though, and i understand theok issue and the circumstance. for me, adding more commercial does not solve their problem. the issue is -- the revenue is not from the commercial. xdwhat they need is probably frm the residential. çokthe question i asked -- it d still be a net of more parking spaces, but could we get rid of the commercial three spaces and count that as residential? this is a place where you do not necessarily need commercial

spaces. you are right here in the valley. i do not know if that is of interest to the project sponsor. i think?xrá makes more sense to eliminate commmrpialç spaces ad turn them to residential, if that is what they need them for. that sort of solves the problem. those are accessible independently. ççi do not know what would han if you eliminatet( those -- technically, obviously, it is still more than one ever. çómaybe staff could comment on - they would not need an exemption. >> that is correct. there is no commercial parking required at this location. >> to be clear, the reason you are here -- i agree with david çbaker that we do not like beig here today. it is strange to have this discussion. you did not approve a conditional use last time for more than 32. more than 32 requires a

conditional use. that is why we are here. even if you approve 33, one more residential space requires a conditional use. just to be clear, because the motion in front of you is for this approval, you would have to take a motion of intent, and it would come back for a final cash to. commissionerç borden:w3 the ony question to the project sponsor isç, i mean -- i know there isa substitute motion, and in another motion on theçi] floor, about the 41. but if we kept the parking pretty much the same but got rid of the three commercial spaces -- are you wedded to the commercial spaces, is the question i have. i do not know if it makes a differencei] to the economics. maybe you could say if it does. >> having more flexibility with the commercial spaces would be valuable. çbut we are here to try to save some of the tandem spaces that

were on the plan. weç h@fe looked for those for residential, ideally. i have some value. commissionerq commercial space is needed? >> is kind of early to say, çbecause we have not rented. they are going to be in a garage downstairs. it is not like the 7-eleven, where you pull up, park, and run in. they are for the owners or employees. have not released that yet. it isç hard to know. be good, in terms of not being strictly commercial. that is true. but it does not really speak to the tandem. commissioner borden: trying to figure out how you accommodate more residential spaces without adding much more parking, so you

still have 35 spaces, where we çstarted,ç but you would havee residential. that is the question of asking. iraq to quit, even though it is not quite the spirit,ç because you would be allowed the three commercial spaces, it is within the contextñr of all, even though it is not within the spirit. çó>> the store owners in the valley are used to not having a parking space korea half of the people here -- this is kind of a new building. some of them have cars and they pay for a parking space. my attitude is we are pulling a valuable engineering card and the revenue goes down, that is all. it is selfish.

commissioner antonini: i would speak to the motion. the project sponsor has already made a compromise from what they have always had in their plan. they areç trying to make it moe reasonablei] because they projet the project based on certain assumptions. he said it wasç only $200,000. thatç is still a lot of money o me that somebody has got to be loosedt( -- that has got to be used or you lose some of those spaces. we had the question about families with middle-class children. not having parking is going to do as good people from buildings. it is less than 1-to-1 parking. if you consider the percentage of the population who does bike, which is