really need to move forward on this. thank you. >> i want to make this brief. i'm a journeyman carpenter. been out of work for a long time, two months. almost a year or two. staying in public housing. i don't know too much about this project, but i know it gives me something to look forward to. it's something to strive for. by me staying in public housing, it's something to strive for. maybe one day qualify to stay in one of these units. president olague: thank you. additional public comment? >> i'm from local 34 carpenter's, local 22. we are supporting this project. we want to be there forever for you guys. president olague: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. andrew brooks from the rincon neighborhood jorks. in the past we supported this project. it was to our chagrin earlier this month. we originally supported this project based upon a three-unit matrix of the plan. as you can see before you, it has been changed. i've talked to you at great lengths many times before about the issue of family housing, the ability to expand a growing family or a family need within rincon hill, which has not been available. i have talked to the project sponsor about this need. he has talked at great length about his concerns, meeting our concerns in the community, and feels that his re-incorporation, his re-matrixing of the unit will in fact support family housing. and you heard from his

representative, his attorney today, that they are going to go out in front of this project at the sell point and promote family housing, promote people buying one unit, two units, combining units before the building is even occupied. they have blueprints and plans that i have seen that we hope will allow for easy incorporation of the units. where you can easily combine a unit and create a family unit. it's very important to us. what we don't need in rincon hill is more 500, 300-square-foot studio apartments. studio apartments create absentee landlords and a dearth of livable housing in the area. this project sponsor for the first time that we've been working on this plan came before you today and said they are going to work to encourage family and workforce housing,

and this is critical in rincon hill. it's critical all over san francisco. now, family and workforce housing in rincon hill is not necessarily the affordability index they may want to see in the mission, but it certainly is family and workforce housing nonetheless. it's needed. we are going to hold the project sponsor's feet to the coal on this one and make sure the sponsor follows through. we're glad to see that the project sponsor is -- president olague: thank you, thank you. any additional public comment? >> i'm a business rep for ironworkers local 377. we appreciate if you move this project forward. all the building trades, as mike theriot said, need this

project to move forward. president olague: can you state your name for the record? >> ed reyes. president olague: thank you. >> sue hefter. when the staff reports shifted, some clarity got lost. and it's not just this one, it's been for several years of the it's really hard to follow the open space, and i was really trying. you can look at the table on the front page. it has shrunk. and you go to the summary of open space on page four and it talks about how they are doing their required on-site open space offsite on lansing street. and then as you change to pages eight, nine and 10, there are little bits of discussion. it should be really clear how they are meeting their code requirement, which is their obligation and their responsibility and doesn't get

shifted on to a public benefit package or anything else. the open space requirement is part of the project, and i'm concerned that you can get into double counting things. double counting open space as part of public benefits, rather than part of what the project is required to do, because the flow of an explanation of how open space is being created and what obligation it meets is muddled. . i think i can read these things and i had a hard time following it through. so the staff should put a chart together, just like they do -- a good project will have a chart, so they know all the exceptions. but the open space, because it's kind of a mixed bag of

public benefits and on-site -- and it's the same space and it can't be counted twice. the open space drove me crazy trying to trace it. thank you. president olague: additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. maybe i can ask mr. -- the planner for this. sorry. just answer that last speaker, about -- i'm looking at this page about provision of open spails. off and on-site. apparently this is the way -- the way it's structured is allowable. maybe you can explain the way this open space is being done. >> as was just pointed out, i was not the original planner on this project, but i will do my

best. my understanding is that they are not providing the full amount of open space on the site for all the units as required by the code, which is what is triggering the exception that was originally granted. but the concept is that they would use the public open space, which would be the working of lansing street, since it is directly adjacent to the protect, that that would act as open space and also open spaces available to the residents of the project. but that is not all that the planning code requires. commissioner antonini: thank you. that's how i read it, too, but we are able to grant that exemption. and if we feel the benefits outweigh the exemptions, that's one of the things we could grant. i'm supportive of the project

for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated. for those of you who may not have remembered, we approved this many years ago. i think it was 2006. it had the 265 units, 265 parking spaces and then it was revised with fewer units and fewer off-street parking spaces. now we've gone up to a new high in number of units at 320, but we've gone up to the original number of parking spaces that were allowed. i think we're getting a lot of benefits by doing this. we're going to get about $4 million additional into the housing fund because we have more unit and it's done by unit count and the number sold, and that's the competence sa tore amount of money that has to go into the fund. i am even couraged by the fact that the project sponsor has spoken about flexibility, and it could end up that we approve up to 320 units.

there could be fewer units, and that's within, you know, the approval. if some of these units were combined into three bedrooms by use ago studio with a two-bedroom or something along those lines, that would be good. there may be situations where families would want to look at this and would want to do that. so i think that flexibility is a very good flexibility to have. i'm encouraged with the other things that are going on and the fact that i hear a lot of mention of the fact that we could conceivably be seeing something starting as early as the ends of this year, early next year. and that's important, because the psychological benefit of a project that breaks ground and gets started is going to have a lot of assurances for other developers who already ven titlements in the area and seeing somebody go through is going to have a good benefit. i think it's a good project. i'll wait and hear what the other commissioners have to say, but i'm going to make a motion after they're done to approve it. president olague: commissioner

sugaya. commissioner sugaya: to touch on a couple of things. first, open space. i really don't like using public right-of-way to satisfy private open-space requirements. i understand that we've already approved the exception once. i didn't like it then. i don't like it now. if the commission wants to apry -- aprivate, i don't know which way to go. but i don't want to this set a precedent for future developments, where the sponsor comes in and says i'm going to use the spreet as my open space. i don't think that quite makes it for me. anyway, be that as it may, i have a question for staff. if we approve the number of

units that's being proposed, and let's say a year from now or two years from now the project is completed and units start to be sold and i look at one of the units and say, oh, this is a two-bedroom unit and i want to make it into a three-bedroom unit by merging it with a studio that's next door, isn't that a unit merger? wouldn't that have to come back to the commission? >> yes. if it's after construction and after the establishment of the units and you wanted to merge two units, such as a two-bedroom and a studio, that would qualify as a merger and would have to follow the planning code requirements for that, which is generally a public hearing and a discretionary review. if they modified the plans before it was constructed and it was still in general conformity with what may be approved today, then that would be done before the units were actually established, and that would be ok.

commissioner sugaya: just to clarify, what's the trigger point? at what point do -- >> would it be the occupancy permit or -- >> in terms of the establishment of the unit? commissioner sugaya: yeah. i mean, we have construction and then they could be showing mock-ups of the unit before the final trigger, which i assume could be the final occupancy permit. >> yes, there would be a certificate of occupancy, that would establish the legality. >> everything after that would trigger the merger, if they decided to change after that. commissioner sugaya: and then to follow up on commissioner antonini, since there are a lot of union people here who want to have jobs, perhaps the project sponsor could tell us when they expect to start construction.

>> we're in for months of architectural documents. i think pushing the end of this year is a possibility, but it's going to be a herculean task. i think it's probably going to be in the first quarter of the next year. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. >> on the merger issue, we could probably draft a condition that would push the occupancy back. because the way i was looking at it, you don't have to necessarily give up a unit if you have them both mapped. you can just put a door through the wall. but you could actually write a condition that says you have a two-bedroom and a studio unit combined through a date that doesn't require a merger

process. i would suggest if there's questions about that, we just add that condition in. president olague: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: yes, you agree with commissioner sugaya concerning the need for open space. i always have a problem with open space anyway with some of the balance canes i see that technically qualify for -- balance conies i see that d- balconies i see. it's not enough to vote against a project, however. the other thing i have also deals with the unit count. because of the number of affordable units. so what's the unit count? is it what we're looking at today or, if all after sudden in november of this year someone wans to put down money and says, i want a

three-bedroom unit, will it be different? >> technically the unit count would be 320 and the affordability would be 12% of that. i suppose that later on, if the mergers were to happen, we wouldn't necessarily lower the affordability ratio. unless at some point maybe -- >> not the ratios, the actual number. when is that established? >> that would be a certificate of occupancy, unless you put a condition in at some point that the merger would happen afterwards. commissioner miguel: i still want the number as we're looking at it today. >> so then would you prefer to add a condition that the affordability remains relative to the 320 units? -goal correct. that would be my suggestion. president olague: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: in support of what commissioner miguel and

commissioner sugaya are saying, i think the way we approve it today is hopefully the last one in a row of several, which means we would fix it based on the number of units we would be approving today in order to effect somewhat of a closure. i don't believe that the use of the public right-of-way as open space is as bad an idea, particularly when you deal with a city where we are very built up in the surrounding areas. the master plan is set. and you almost keep creating like -- a shared public way. while i don't think it should be counting toward public space, that decision was made generations before us. generations of the planning commission. so overall i think that moving slightly away from a three-bedroom unit is probably

more realistic to what the market is really looking for, particularly in that area. so i don't have a real problem with that. and i think the building in itself has substantively not changed. the variance for the exposure is really the same. all you do is put different units in the same area where it applies and there's no substantive change. so i'd make a motion that we approve this project with the caveat that the number of affordable units be pegged to the number of units that is described in today's motion. >> second. >> and if i may clarify, i believe since they're playing an in lieu fee -- >> commissioner antonini. >> i think my question was

answered. i was going to check with the project sponsor, if that sounded like it was going to be ok as part of the motion. and also, just as a matter of course, i believe that without having to come back for any additional approval, you're allowed to go 5% down and 10% up, i believe, on the count of units. and so if we did have fewer units built, that may occur. but we're locking in the inclusionary fee based upon the 320. is that going to be acceptable? >> yes, that's acceptable. maybe we could work together toward a solution on the unit merger condition, so we wouldn't have to return and find a way of handling that. that would be useful. i don't know that there are going to be a lot of three bedrooms. some people in the community felt strongly, and we wanted to be able to provide an option. >> thank you. a friendly amendment. if we can kind of incorporate that and continue to work with staff on this issue of the unit

combining and when at such time as the unit count would be solidified in terms of the merger question. >> well, that falls under the provisions of mergers that is completely independent of what we are deciding today, because that is a rule standing totally on its own. it's not any particular kind of acknowledgment we're making to this development. it would have to come back and i'm not an expert on exactly when it's triggered, so i'm looking for the zoning administrator to tell us that. >> my thinking was more that there would be a cooperation that we would try to make these decisions, should some exist. and there may not be that many, of three-bedroom units that might come up. probably front ended to the point that the count could be -- all this could be taken care of during the construction process. commissioner moore: does the question lie with the zoning administration, that the rules

apply across the board? doesn't matter with this project or any other, built or unbuilt, coming back for subsequent approval. whatever your interpretation is is what i will live with. >> as i understand it, the way the current rules are is that if such a merger happens after a certificate of occupancy, it would have to come here to the commission. that's the way the current rules are. the question on the table really, as i it -- maybe i'm misunderstanding -- is whether you want flexibility in allowing that to happen differently. and if that's not the case, then that's fine. >> the 5% and 10% rule is the policy that you established, which is why that project is here today, because they went up more than 5%, or whatever the number is. but the merger is actually -- is actually code. i don't think we could approve it administratively if it happened after the certificate

of occupancy. >> so decisions could be made before the certificate of occupancy is completed, and, you know, it may result in a unit count that's lower, but as long as it's in the permitted number, the percentage is slower, then we shouldn't have any problem with that. >> we can certainly agree. and if you want to add a condition that we will report to you on the final unit count in the form of a memo or something, just to let you know what's going on. >> that would be fine. i's not necessary, but it would be fine with me. commissioner moore: i think we don't want to look like really hard and tough. on the other hand, i do not want to give the impression that as a commission we can't just kind of leave it open. there are approvals and there are approvals. and the paper says what it says, and that's what you get. that applies equally to all and everybody who comes here. so i think we all are very friendly people and we engage

in constructive dialogue. but to leave it open of how it is decided at the moment, that is not what i basically can support. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think it's an unfounded fear or whatever. if it happens before the certificate of occupancy, obviously within the percent limit, it's going to happen anyway. so there may be more three bedrooms materialize if the marketing effort is indeed going to go ahead before the certificate's issued, so those mergers will happen and it will be reflected, you know. as the director said, if that happens, they'll give us a report. afterwards, then i think the law is in code, so i don't think we can actually change it. commissioner moore: right. president olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with the modification that a unit

count is tied to the number of units that are before you today. there is no further modification that will incorporate this working with staff on the unit merger thing. on that motion, commissioner antonini. [votes taken. [all say aye.] president olague: that motion passed unanimously. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you are now on item number 12. >> case number 2010.1045 c for 401 taraval street. >> good afternoon, president olague, members of the planning commission staff. we request a conditional use authorization to establish a church at 401 taraval street.

the property is located in the mc-1 district. the church would be operated by the san francisco bible church in a building that was constructed in 1972, approximately two stories over basement and approximately 13,000 square feet. we've heard some comments from the neighbors in the general vicinity that they're concerned that the project would impact parking and traffic in the neighborhood. currently the project is overparked. it is required to have nine parking spaces by code, and it has 18. secondly, i've received comments from a neighbor who owns the building right next door on taraval street who's concerned about people congregating in front of her entrance, which is close to the entrance of this building. and that has been the problem in the past with other

occupants of this building. also -- so at this point the department is recommending that we approve this with conditions. we feel that it's a good adaptive re-use of an existing building that's sat vacant for over a decade. also, we feel that it is very close to transit, so therefore it should cut down on any traffic impact that could happen. and this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any comments. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, president olague and planning commission. my name is albert louie, and i represent san francisco bible church. our church has purchased this property on taraval and its current use is an office building. we're here today to convert

this property from a b occupancy to an a-3 worship service or worship assembly. some of the things i want to bring up to the commission that we're going to be doing to this building to upgrade the building. obviously from an office building, we don't have the proper floor loading. any time you do any structural enhancements to the building, you also have to address sizing. so we're going to incorporate it to increase the floor loading as well as increase to meet the current seismic requirements for the building. in addition to occupying the building as a worship hall, we will be also widening the front staircase as well as the back staircase. there is a current elevator in place today which did not meet the building code requirements for a.d.a. or accessability. so we will also be moving the

current elevator and incorporating the current elevator as part of the entrance. the front of the building also needs to be modified, because we have a staircase that runs up to the main floor. it's a building over a garage, as mr. smith had described. and with that, we will remove that staircase and within that we'll put a front door that leads into a staircase and to the elevator that reaches each one of the floors. a little bit more about the elevator itself. currently the building does have an elevator that has accessability only through the garage of the building. it does not have accessability through the front entrance of the building. that's another reason why we are moving that entrance to the elevator from the back of the building to the front. and that elevator also will be reaching into the garage as well in case a handicapped person comes in via the garage and can access each one the floors via the elevator itself.

some comments about the church itself. we currently have about 330 regular attenders in our church. in the last year and a half we've experienced a growth in our church and that's one reason why 401 taraval became available and we felt that moving there would be a good solution to an overcrowded church that we currently have. the building will be about five times larger than our current site today. so we are making plans to enlarge -- provide enlargement of the worship hall that we currently have today to accommodate the current size that we have with some additional growth. as also expressed, we know that moving into the neighborhood we are going to be expressing concerns about parking congestion. the office building has 75, now experiencing 300-plus in the neighborhood. i sympathize with the thabes

that may have concern with that. as expressed, our garage does have 18 internal parking spaces. we will also probably stock the garages with additional cars with an attendant to provide direction. in regards to the concern from the neighbor about the noise next door, i spoke to the neighbor myself and expressed my sympathy to the noise that she has experienced and the years that they lived there. if you look at the drawings and study them, it is not a grand entrance by any means for people to congregate. it's just an entrance to a staircase and elevator. the concerns of noise. there should be no reason whatsoever that people would congregate in front of the building, and also to the concern of the