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 time. the project sponsor did not agree to this request. he claims there already reduced the number of seats from 26 to 16. he believes it is an integral part of his breakfast service. ultimately, no agreement between the project sponsor and the neighbors in attendance has been reached. the department continues to recommend approval of standard conditions on the basis that the product promotes local and small-business ownership and will generate new employment opportunities for the community a. the site is well served by public transit and most employees are anticipated to live in the area. the product meets all requirements for the planning code. our control was the standard

issues of approval and is necessary and desirable with size and intensity. it is compatible with the location and will contribute to the services within the broader neighborhood. this concludes our presentation and i will answer any further questions. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. >> hello. three weeks ago, when i spoke before the commission, i focused on my family settling into the neighborhood, are deep love of the streets and neighborhood around us. this time, i would like to speak more directly to the efforts of community outreach and my neighbors. a few days after a sign the lease on the space, i spoke to the head of the association discussing the project with his

support over the phone. a few days later, i met with the neighbor upstairs and spoke to her about the project and gave her my cell phone number and the cell phone number of the contractor to ensure for comfort during the renovation process. i was available at the construction site every day in the middle of the dayç to speak with my neighbors. two days prior to the meeting, there was a request for a public meeting which was an initial continuance. at the publicxd meeting, there s overwhelming attendance. many familiar faces and many new faces. incredible support for the çproject based on issues of noe and parking. mostç particularly. i have met with those neighbors since meeting with supervisor campos. i also met with the lower 24

streetçó merchants association. we then had the hearing. in between, i met privately with rita. the hearing from three weeks ago was with the concerned neighbors and attendance for that meeting, trying toç come o a resolution. yesterday, i met again with rita to propose another possible resolution. she could not in the support of the other neighbors who were concerned and decided not to come today as a general showç f neighborly support, i guess. i realize in the initial attempt of community outreach, i underestimated the concerns that would be turning the store into a new establishment that would employ more people and bring more business to the street. i should have, independent ofç

anything, make sure i was available to my neighbor is. thank you for your consideration. president miguel: çthank you. i have some speaker cards. joel, one with no name, and vlad a. there will be two minutes of commons because this is the third time it is before us. >> honorable members of the commission, my name is joel and i live at 2352 23rd street. i have lived there since 1983. i have seen this neighborhood change a great deal over time. we went from a period of time where the mood was unlivable. i was personally the victim of

crimes. many times. my house is riddled with bullet holes. i do not want to see this never would turn into the ghetto that it used to be. the business proposed, the new establishment proposed is right across the street from where i live. it is a better option than the store that was there before. i cannotç think of any kind of better way to provide safety for the neighbors that having such an establishment across the street. as just a small incident, one of my ex-girlfriendçs, three or fr years ago, was mugged right downstairs.

she was physically aggressive. it is added security if we added a business there. my main concern, and i will close on this, is to make sure that the business is successful and i would respectfully ask that the commission removed any sort -- any form of limitation on the business to ensure that this business be successful. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. if i have called your name, please come up. >> good evening. fáçmy name ist( vlad. iç have lived and worked in the neighborhood for about 10 years. here, i came to talk on behalf of myself.

he came to the neighborhood a few years ago and demonstrated how great he is to the neighborhood. he opened a successful restaurant. he contributed his time to the neighbors. i was present at the mediation meeting as a consols. i think he showed and demonstrated a good amount of flexibility. from a larger perspective, i believe that this business would seriously encourage our community. it will create jobs and support the improved crime situation, which is also important. another option, to have this on the end for gravity and everything else.

i would like to support the proposed business. in terms of hours, i believe that breakfast, as a business person, it is eight hours. it is very reasonable. other restaurants i have opened have started at 7:00 or 6:00 a.m. in terms of the number of tablesç, this i do not know. from a business model perspective, it is probably for a business to stay viable and arrived in this additional economy. additional seats would help. thank you. president miguel: rob thompson and irena reed. >> good afternoon in -- good

afternoon. my name is rob thompson. i live two blocks from the proposed site. i'm coming to you with my support for the proposal as a neighbor and a member of the community. i have been working with a small group of neighbors for the last several years with the planning department on the bryant street traffic diet project, which as been a wonderful opportunity for the neighborhood. it strikes me that a project like this is perfectly complementary to the neighborhood's efforts and enthusiasm for bringing greater life and vibrancy to this part of bryant street. i would like to voice my support andok that of my wife, o also lives with me at that address, for the project, that it go for without minimal restrictions -- that it go forward without minimal restrictions. >> i am here to voice my support

also. i could say a lot about what i want this in my neighborhood. it will be some place that i walk by when i get off the bus or when i come home, i can walk right by it. it will make the neighborhood more fun. i will get to meet more of my neighbors and more of my neighbors will want to stay in the name of a logger, keep their families there. i personally want to see all my neighbors to have children or okwomen like myself who might be walking alone late at night, to feel safe. çthe restauranght onto the sidewalk and keeps our sidewalk clean. i'm really looking forward to the beautiful food and seeing more people with great jobs in the neighborhood. please support it as well. president miguel: additional public comment?

>> thank you. i'm here to voice my support of the proposal as well. mostly because i am a runner and when i first moved to san francisco, i used to beq about running the streets because so many is -- so many of the streets are quiet. the vibrancy and energy that this would provide, especially with the outdoor seating, would make me feel safe and comfortable. it is of huge importance to me. i would hope to go there as often as i could, knowing that that is not the reason i'm here, i'm here for the community and vibrancy that it would allow on the streets. >> i live at 1171 alabama street, two blocks from the proposed site. i'm here to support the restaurant. i think he has been a positive addition to the neighborhood and i look forward to seeing

additional resources being expended by someone who lives in the neighborhood and is willing to continue to build businesses within the neighborhood. i have a 1-year-old daughter and the first place we took her to is the local eatery because it he supported having children and families around but also at sustainable food that was good -- there was a good model for her. as i watched her grow up, i think about the neighborhood i want to have her live in. i envision her walking to elementary school, passing by the local corner and enjoying a restaurant where all the ingredients are sustainable and people pay -- people are paid a living wage and are hired locally. the person who started the restaurant lives across the street. that is a model that i want to -- i wantç my daughter to growp envisioning. thank you. president miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is

closed. i would like to thank not only supervisor campos, but in particular, britney. çi go to a number of these neighborhood meetings because i like to hear the questions that come up and like to look at the sites directly. this is aç site that originally had four quarters of commercial businesses, one of which has been turned into a residential units. the particular business here was a pseudo-gross restore that was actually a liquor store. i]brittany ran a great meeting, not on site, but close by. xplored all the possibilities, affirmatively try to get everyone to come to a consensus. .5