Skip to content
by Aaron Bialick
A bit of a clarification on the 7 additional parking spaces: the project, 401 Grove, had these 7 tandem spaces, that are all in front of the regular spaces and not individually accessible, previously approved by the Planning Commission as part of their Use Permit. The SF Planning Department changed the definition of tandem space recently: they used to not count these spaces towards a project’s “minimum” parking requirement. Now they count towards your “maximum”. That’s a good change. Confused yet? These developers got caught in the switch from “minimum” to “”maximum” parking standards. It’s too bad since we’re having budget issues (I’m the architect so I have a point of view influenced by self interest for sure) and this is a hit to the possible construction budget, which we are in the process of cutting (ouch, hate this part). Not that it matters but the developers are two very nice people who’ve worked with for many years. They are building a building that has 0.5 car parking except for these tandem spaces (that used to be OK), 1 to 1 bicycle parking, affordable housing on site, and will be very green (though LEED Certification is on the cutting block). Be nice to see them succeed (my point of view again) so other less enlightened developers (who typically want at least 0.75 cars per unit and more if possible) wouldn’t resist the parking minimums so vigorously.
“I think people’s survival instincts in general are pretty strong, and we will naturally make choices based on that. When you limit our options, you can actually make us less safe. This is what concerns me the most about Captain Sanford’s approach.”
In response to "SFPD's Sanford Explains His Evolving Views on Bicycling and Traffic Priorities"