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 whatever happens and the new tenant, the new owner, i want somebody somewhere to put something in it that if anybody does anything structurally with their building, that that issue becomes addressed. because it's been a real pain. these are lovely people, but i have been there, spent 35 years of my early life there and another three years there when i had to move out in order to come before the planning commission and build my current

abode. been there, done that, know all the pieces here, ok? and i've had a terrible time with people who weren't so considerate. so i don't know what you can do or what anybody else can do, but i'd like to have it down on the record that this has been a problem and somebody needs to look at it. if they can't do anything, maybe in the future, if they can't do what they want to do and they have to sell the building, please, can somebody put that in the record because it's a pain. thank you so much. president olague: thank you. i don't have any other speaker cards, but at this point, if people want to come up and speak, they can, or if they want to stand up to show their support for the project, they can. and then -- because i don't have any other speaker cards. and i assume that you're all in support of the project. ok, thank you. i don't want to assume, but is there any opposition?

i don't have any other cards before me. no? so does anyone want to speak? seeing none -- seeing no additional speakers, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm going to maybe a motion to approve, but i would like to comment on the last speaker and just encourage the church that, if it's possible -- it's colonel not a condition, but if there's a way to do something with the front door, as time goes on, it might even -- i think one of the speakers representative of the church said we really would like to have a nicer entrance in there. so if it becomes economically feasible to do that, it would be a nice thing to do, but certainly not a condition at this point. but something to think about. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i'd encourage the church to take a look. one of the conditions of moving it to the opposite side, toward the corner, is that there's a

utility room in the basement. and i don't know what's in there. but it might be really expensive to take out whatever is in there and that kind of thing. but if you can take a look at it, other than that it doesn't seem to be, on the face of it, having looked at this just for this particular approval, any reason that it couldn't be switched. but, you know, it's not a condition. but we'd encourage you to kind of take a look at it, if you could. president olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with an encouragement to the project sponsor to look at possibly moving the front entrance to another location if that proves to be possible. on that commission, commissioner antonini. aye. >> aye. >> aye. commissioner moore has stepped away from the room. commissioner sugaya. aye. aye. aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously.

commissioners, you are now on -- >> i was going to ask that we take a 10-minute recess. i want to make sure that commissioner moore is here for the next discussion because it's based on clarification. president olague: the president olague: ok, the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you are on item number 13, for 3987 20th street. and this is a hearing to clarify a previous planning commission decision. it was on a d.r. case adopted february 3, 2011. the building permit application proposed to construct a roof deck and a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling. it's also in the delores heights special use district. and commissioners, the only reason i read that through is because i really want to

emphasize that this item is before you for clarification. the d.r. case it not before you. it cannot be addressed at this time. it was not noticed for a d.r. hearing. the only thing before you is clarification of the motion made at that hearing. >> good afternoon, president olague. michael smith. planning department staff. you have before you 3987 20th street. i'm sorry that we're here today, but if you refer to the overhead, i'll try to clarify the area of dispute. the motion that was written after the february hearing reflects -- is reflected in this plan, which shows a notch right here, a three by eight notch, approximately. the neighbors or the d.r. requesters received that action memo and it was our

understanding that it was to encompass this area highlighted in yellow as well. i have since met with the maker of the motion and clarified that it was indeed to include this yellow area that's highlighted here as well, which would be a setback for the whot depth of the addition -- whole department of the addition. this really concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions or comments. president olague: i'm sorry. i'd like to open it up for public comment at this time. >> madam president, let me just say one more thing. this is not a typical d.r. hearing. the project sponsor does not get five minutes. each speaker can have up to three minutes, depending on the rules that you've set. president olague: thank you, secretary avery, for clarifying that. >> thank you, president olague,

jeremy paul for the project sponsor. after the public hearing we spoke to commissioner moore, who made that motion, and used this set of plans to get clarification of where this line should be. and the markings that were made on this were made by commissioner moore at that time. she was very, very clear that we were lining up to the furthest projection in the adjacent building, which was here. and i'll show you some ph this reflects a substantial cut into the existing deck at this site. this is a photograph of the existing deck at this site. and there is the property

standing at the point at which we need to cut this deck back to meet the motion as it was recorded. if in fact we're being asked to push that all the way back to the house srks the doors that are there, the existing french doors that enter that balcony will no longer function. this changes this project substantially for mr. copp, and it does not improve the situation in any noticeable way for the adjacent property owner. this is ms. todd's home. this is the deck that must be cut back to meet this extension right here. so we're cutting back about this far into this existing balcony. the area below it, as you see, that we'd be eliminating our infill from is fully solid. so if we were to cut this back any further than this, we're not giving any substantial benefit in