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 neighbors, we'll probably express that specifically to our church body, that we need to congregate indoors or take it somewhere else and not in front of the building. and we want to be conscious of the neighborhood as well. we do not want to block our walkway, because it is a public walkway as well. since we've owned that building, again, i'd like to

express just the benefits of us being there. there are many services within walking distance of the church, the new location of our church. so we'll be able to take advantage of all the services that are in there. there's a paint store, glass services, dry cleaning, a lot of different things that we would benefit from. we took a poll of our total head count, of our church. approximately 25% of our church lives in the district, within driving distance of the property. in addition to that, we also have six to eight families that are actually in walking distance to the chuff. so i think this will greatly allow us to reach out to our congregation as well. in addition to that, one block away on santiago and 14th is the hoover middle school. and you know, as well as all churches, we want to reach out to our community. and we're looking at some of

the opportunities to reach some of the students from the school, maybe provide after-school tutoring, whatever programs that maybe we can reach out to them and also reach out to the community as well. we're looking at positive things and potentially to improve our current condition, which is very crowded at the current time and to be able to move into a building that we can make use of. so i hope that this would be in favor of the planning commission moving forward. thank you. president olague: thank you. i don't think we have -- we have one speaker card. if you'd like to pass that forward. georgia parsons.

>> thank you members of the commission. my name is georgia parsons. i am the owner of the property next to 401 taraval street. and i want to say that i have had a discussion recently with mr. louis, and i have no problems -- mr. louie and i have no problems with the church moving next door to me as a neighbor. my concern rests with the structure of the original building. my family -- my grandfather built the building that i own as a neighbor of 401 taraval in 1949. and in 1972 my family was not given the opportunity, as i am here before you today, to express an opinion of what went next door to them. they were simply told, here's the building, you know. you pay for your share of the section that has to be supported structurally for our new big commercial building.

so i feel -- my family has hated that building since it went up in 1972 and it's hated it because of where the entrance is located. i wish to heavens i could do something or that planning commission or the church could do something, anybody could do something within reason in terms of cost and times and what have you to move the darned entrance. all the other buildings, the entrances are on the corner. why in heaven's name they have to put it within four or five feet of my entrance is -- you know, who knows? but i don't want to come here and guasch the project for these lovely people -- quash the project for these lovely people. i would just like to have something looked at. if the church cannot fulfill because of money or whatever to do whatever it wants to do there and it has to sell it or there and it has to sell it or whatever happens and the new