Skip to content
RSS Feed | Submit Event
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.
“You don't need any quotas. Just tell your officers to go out and cite the most egregious and dangerous violations on the streets. And use statistics, not your car-centric bias, to determine what those are.”
In response to "New SFPD Traffic Chief Ann Mannix Hesitant to "Focus on the Five""