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 laudable, but it is not a high percentage of the population, or those who do not own a car at all, it is a small percentage, generally, you should have policy on what

people will do and will continue to do. it makes sense that this is a modest thing that makes usç lok somewhat more reasonable. i would support the motion. ñrñrcommissioner moore: çis tha çokprecedent that there are identified flex spaces in other cities where commercial spaces are being used for residential at night? is it possible to identify these commercial spaces? i'm not talking about adding tandem spaces for a dual use. >> there may be some instances of an arrangement being made to allow something like that, maybe on a larger project. i am not aware of a specific example. the parking maximum does not recognize that sort of arrangement in any way. t(commissioner fong: a follow on

that thought. the commercial spaces, i see where your going if you knew it was going to be daytime business is only and that the merchants were not going to use them, you could turn them over to residential. given the neighborhood, they could be on the side of the commercial spaces, activities taking place where they do not çvacate and the ishaqi inç --d the shopkeeper would not be able to vacate them. commissioner moore: it is very clear that most residential zones are trending not toç have every parking space owned and eople who are living inhis. i am not prepared to create a parking reservoir for other people to rent their space to others other than the ones who are living in the building. that is part of what you're starting toç -- part of why you are starting to haveç different spaces.

i personally have to continue to support commissioner sugaya and his analysis, including his comment that of -- that if we are increasing parking that comes with a conditional use, we can only make an intense motion. i would have to stick with that at this time and not support anything else. floor -- there is. commissioner sugaya: repeating what everybody else has already said, it is a bit difficult because we have the initial staff recommendation in our vote, which was based on 32. i think, somewhat clearly, the plans show can and spaces in four areas. it would seem thatç that is why we are here. wew3 have this conflict between what was presented graphically and the analysis or whatevgrv

showing a recommendation for a 32. -- for 32. if the staff interpretedç the tenant spaces to be to spaces anyway, the staff recommendation would still have been 32. is that correct? >> that is correct. it is our policy that we recommend .5 has a maximum for parking, the principally permitted amount. commissioner antonini: ñrçi wod like toq again. my belief and experience has been that a lot of the traffic congestion and problems happen and has to do with people looking for parking places, passing through neighborhoods, frequently will go by residential buildings and i

rarely see anybody coming in or out of the garage. a lot of the cars sit there=) l week. while we are hoping to do is have a reasonable policy. and approve as much residential parking as we can that is reasonable. it will not change people. çit will select out people with cars. they say, i am not going to buy this because i have a car. i am not going to rent this because i am going to search around for a parking place for itç what this policy does is select out people who might be good for the area. the parking excludes them. we need to try to be as flexible as we can with parking. xd>> there is a motion on the floor for an approval of 32 singlu,ó independently accessibe parking spaces.

>> for a total of 41. >> on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: çi am very torn on this one. no. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. q xdcommissioner wu: no. president miguel: aye. xd>> the motion fails on a 3-4 vote. president miguel: is there any other motion? if there is no motion, then it is disapproved, right?

commissioner moore:i] could you say it louder? i cannot hear you. >> if there is no substitute motion, what stands is what you approved last time, 32 spaces. commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner antonini: let's try another one. 39 parking spaces, which would be two less. okwe will keep all of the -- we need the car share and we need the commercial, but we only go with two tandem, trying to give them something rather than nothing. if there is no new motion, the can -- the can and cannot be used as parking spaces, is that correct? president miguel: i will again

second although i am disappointed theç previous motn failed. i definitely believe there was confusion in the entire process. i do not think it was handled properly. the number and the count were in opposition to each other. the definition of tandem, i do not believe was clear. okthe changeover from maximum to minimum, i do not think it is a clear-cut case. that is why i second the motion. t(commissioner moore: i would le to make the counterpoint that the consistency, which we have been quite strong about, is notable and laudable to me. i have to repeat architect baker, one of the largest proponents and strongest supporters of .5 has expressed

his belief that it is correct. this is an error somewhere in the drawing and the commission does not use the drawings and tell parking spaces. i th clear and i am proud to continue to support the staff recommendation. i do not want to askç for permission -- i admire your position. i do support the staff analysis and their consistency, bringing itç to usñr as it is supposed o be. w3commissioner sugaya: just to repeat, my question to staff was there recommendation would have been 30 to whether or not there would have beenç 37, 39, 45, wt ever number of spaces. that is why i am voting against it. commissioner antonini: mr. baker, i think you have a question or comment.

i would speak in favor of this. perhaps i could get your input on that. if this is going to work for you. >> i do not think there is an error. the tandem spaces used to be a space where you could put two vehicles a. if you had seventh andis, you could put 14 vehicles. and then it became a space in front of the accessible space andi] became a full-fledged parking space. that happened between the first time the project was approved and the submission of the site permit. i do not think there was -- the meaning of tandem is very confusing. i keep saying there is 710 spaces. it used to mean that there were seven spaces and 14 sparse -- and 14 cars. but then itq became 7 individual spaces and it was all theñr sam.

i do not think it was an intentional error ofç omission, but the definition change and nobody added it all up. that is my point. we did not intentionally ask for additional because when we asked for it, they were not additional. i realize you can change the rules in the middle. that is the way the cookie crumbles. commissioner antonini: i agree with you 100%. i see this as a bad example. essentially, you have a grandfathered situation and we're saying, we really did not mean that. we know the drawing showed that, but we're going to use this opportunity to change your project. on market and octavia, i do not think the parking is high enough, but it does allow the commissioners the authority, if there is an opportunity for a

conditional use, this lends at the very least, i would support this motion even though it is far less than the project sponsor should have to have. i think it will have a dampening effect on people who try to build into market octavia. they're going to select the types of produce that will only allow for certain populations to be there, those who have a fewer number of cars, which is not good for san francisco's. commissioner sugaya: 32 wasç te number we voted on and we understood that was the recommendation from staff. whether there was a mistakeç on the plans orxd not, i do notxd w -- i do notç remember the hearing. i would imagine the project sponsor would have argued for more than they may have at the hearings. that is neitherç here nor there now. i call a question. commissioner moore: i would like

in a motion were tandems faces ought to be approved as tandem spaces or stacked spaces, they are called out by description. that is the way this commission approves projects here in we have projects where an applicant did speak about tandem spaces in their ground-floor or below- grade residential building. 710is do not work and we question whether it is physically possible. you are judging this by the written word and not on the drawing. >> the motion on the floor is for a motion of intent for approval of 39 spaces inzv total from 32 single residential, to

tandem, to karcher, and to commercial. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: no. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. çcommissioner wu: no. president miguel: aye. i]>> the motion again fails. president miguel: is there any further commission comment on this item? >> the commission failed to take action on this item. the original motion stands. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item #9. 2500 bryant st. there is a note that falling public testimony, beacon -- the commission continue the matter to this stage by a vote of 5-0.

the project sponsor was with his neighbor. commissioner fong was absent. commissioner wu was not on the commission at that time. çcommissioner fong, were you ae to review the record? commissioner fong: yes. >> and commissioner wu would need you to reduce her from participation. is there a motion from a roof -- for a refusal? on the motion to recuse -- commissioner antonini: aye. ñrcommissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. commissioner borden: aye. >> you have before you a request for kermit -- for a conditional

use authorization to convert a grocery store to a full-service restaurant at 2500 bryant street. the site is located in a zoning as mixed residential. although non-residential uses are present as well. this item was continued for the second time at thei] january 26 planning commission hearing. ñrthe planning commission direcs the project sponsored to continue working with neighbors to address the issue. the commission requests that staff and members of the lower 24th street neighbors association participate in the mediation efforts. on february 8, these parties attended a mediation meeting çfacilitated by the offices of supervisor campos. although concessions were made, the discussions stalled on the proposals at the proceeding. the neighbors requested that the project sponsor reduce the number proposed from 16 to 12 and limit the outdoor