Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Project Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 777 Tennessee residential project after debate over subterranean parking efficiency
Summary
The commission approved a 59‑unit large‑project authorization at 777 Tennessee Street after extended debate over whether the subterranean garage meets Planning Code space‑efficiency requirements; commissioners adopted an amended finding allowing the project as designed, 5‑2.
After extensive public testimony and a sustained commissioner exchange on parking policy and shadow impacts, the Planning Commission approved a five‑story, 59‑unit residential project at 777 Tennessee Street but amended the staff findings on off‑street parking.
Planning staff presented the project as a 58‑foot building with 59 residential units (including 8 on‑site below‑market units), two subterranean parking levels providing about 50 parking spaces and expanded usable open space. Chris Towns, the planner, said staff generally supported the project's findings but flagged a question under Planning Code section 151.1.g concerning ‘‘space‑efficient’’ parking for units entitled to a 1:1 parking ratio (units over 1,000 sq ft and with two or three bedrooms). Staff questioned whether the below‑grade garage met the code's intent to reduce surface parking and to maximize other uses.
Project architect Mitchell Benjamin and the sponsor described multiple design responses — the garage is predominantly below grade, includes valet operation and additional car‑share spaces, and the project adds open space and landscaping favored by neighborhood groups. Neighbors spoke both in opposition (concerns about loss of sunlight, shadowing and exposure for adjacent properties) and in support (Dogpatch Neighborhood Association letter and additional letters of support).
Commissioner debate centered on whether the code's space‑efficiency requirement was intended primarily to transform above‑grade parking or whether subterranean configurations could be treated differently when topography and existing excavation are present. Commissioners Moore and Richards argued for stricter space‑efficiency measures such as stackers or redesign; Commissioners Johnson, Hillis and Antonini argued that the site's topography and existing excavation made the staff's strict interpretation impractical. The commission adopted an amended finding that acknowledged the existing excavated subterranean condition and allowed the proposed parking configuration as de minimis (six additional spaces) and approved the project 5‑2, with Moore and Richards opposed.
Staff will record the finding and proceed with drafting the final motion and conditions; the approval includes onsite affordability commitments and a requirement to finalize parking operational details in the construction documents.
