They will be moving out, and moving forward, its my understanding that its to be used, the 235,000 cost or the gap that mohcd has for developing housing, times that by the 150 and thats how we got the number. Commissioner richards okay. I wondered. Every single live work unit that was approved in San Francisco has an n. S. R. On it and saying its not housing, its commercial. And so academy put students in the housing pardon me in the buildings and considered it to be student housing, but they didnt comply with the law oliv on livework units. There were units that were abandoned, and there were more on harrison street. So they were not housing at that time because they were not conforming housing. That w they were both substantial buildings. President melgar thank you, miss hester. Mr. Adams, did you want to explain the methodology further . Dan adams, mohcd. Scott sanchez explanation was spot on. Commissioner richards we had a case here probably three or four units where essex trust legalized livework units, but at the time, livework was still livework. It was still illegal to use it as dwelling units or student housing, so what would that do to the units if we included bloxom. It would increase it by 33 numbers, which is the number in 575 harrison that theyre retaining. In regards to the livework issue, for this has been going on for a while, so for about a decade, its been the position of the department that since theyre in compliance with the notice of restrictions of livework units, which does not prohibit artists from living in livework units, even if theyre students, that wouldnt prohibit that. The academy must maintain the status of the units that existed at that time, and maybe they can explain the status of their livework buildings. President melgar okay. Commissioner johnson . Commissioner richards i was going to ask that. President melgar oh, im sorry. Commissioner richards yeah, how they complied. Nick rosen. So there are two in the existing 40site campus, there were two livework sites. 575 harrison and roosevelt. The sites arent identical across the board, and in the case of 168 bluxon, the academy is vacating that site, so its being put back onto the market as livework housing. At 575 harrison, theres no requirement the common feature of n. S. R. Is a common requirement that residents have business licenses. Thats not a common requirement for the n. S. R. , so i think we established that the academys use was legal at that time. President melgar commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson so it has been a long road on this project. I know many there have been folks that have been involved for decades. I have just been on the commission for maybe 1. 5 years, and ive heard stories. So i know that for advocates, for community folks, for staff, for City Attorney, we all care about making sure that this project that folks are held accountability and that the city is getting what it deserves for the violations that has happened. I think the two most important things and i kind of came to thinking about this, how do with you get resources, how how do we get resources and how do we look at things like that. So the two things that i looked at were how do we get resources and how to we get documents . Just talking with the City Attorney and walking through each piece of it and why i feel these benefits are correct, one, we just opined on the on the settlement amount, the dollars. But two, just looking at real enforcements that give us teeth to one, really bring things into compliance and two, go after the academy if they dont follow through. I would just say that i think, you know, there has been conversation about should there be units or should we acquire properties . I just certainly think that in addition to the settlement amount, having the city use those communities to stablize cities, to make sure that we are providing housing to folks who in different parts of the city as a mitigation to this is preferable to those sites. The one question that i do have that i would like to hear just a little bit more explanation on is around the accessibility issue. Can somebody from staff just speak a little bit more about how weve been thinking about that, just to let the public now how weve been thinking about that issue . Thank you. So we certainly appreciate the Public Comment that has been received, and we agree that the buildings need to meet all relevant code requirements. And that review is done by other agencies than the Planning Department. We dont see that as kind of kicking it down the road, its having the proper agencies do the proper review that they do on a normal basis. You know, we dont have that expertise to have that work done. Thats done by other agencies, so we see that this proposal here which will allow for permits to come through to legalize uses at these various properties will allow them to bring them up to code. And i know the project sponsors architect is here as well as their attorney, and they may have further comments as to the accessibility. Commissioner johnson please, director. I just have one thing. Correct me if i am wrong but theres nothing in this agreement that removes the requirement to be accessible, right . Yeah, correct. Theres nothing that a bridge removes, reduces in any way their accessibility requirements under the law. Thats just not done. They have to meet all the requirements. President melgar they havent been exactly compliant, so what i would like to do is inspect the mechanism that we can use to go after them if they dont have compliance. We have the teeth in the permit to get the compliance. They have to do the work in a timely fashion. There are various milestones set there. If they dont meet accessibility requirements that are outlined in the approved plans, thats a mechanism for us to review that with the judge, and the academys very well on notice with this. President melgar thank you. Miss jensen, do you want to talk about that . Thank you, president melga. Kristen jensen from the City Attorneys office. The injunction specifically states that if the department of the city if any department of the city issues a notice for violation of the code so that would include d. B. I. Or any other Department Issues an n. O. V. , we get to go back to court we get immediate access to court. We dont have to file a lawsuit, we dont have to file a notice, we have a stipulated judgment that allows us to fast track a litigation solution in the event of violations of city codes, so thats how we would address any violations of the kind were talking about now. So in addition to the fact that d. B. I. Would review its normal review perform its normal reviews in the reviewing process, we have the right to go to court if they dont remediate right away. President melgar okay. Okay. So i had ill say a couple things. I heard folks comments, and i totally emotionally agree with wanting an extra pound of flesh. I think that it really bugs me that people are so dismissive of our regulatory infrastructure. We live in a very tight sevenbyseven miles. Its a complicated thing, so that people just kind of skirt the law with impunity really, really bugs me. That said, i know that our city staff is excellent. Having worked with them in a coup for a couple of decades prior to this, i know we have some of the toughest laws ever. I do know this is a deal thats worth approving. That being said, you know, its also, for me, an issue of timing, and that to me is strategic and important because i think were in a housing crisis. I think these folks caused some of what we have now, which is why its appropriate to have them pay, but i also think that we are going into a bit of a downturn in development, and i say that watching our pipeline at d. B. I. And watching the amount of fees thats coming into the Affordable Housing fund. We are not seeing as robust, you know, a pipeline of fees as we would like. And its a Counter Cyclical things that were seeing in sfresSan Francisco, when people want to build, thats when the economy is robust, and thats when its expensive. So weve set up this system to get Affordable Housing precisely when its the worst time to build Affordable Housing. So seeing as were going into a bit of a downturn, it seems to me smart to have the bond that we just passed and have an extra 45 million and money into the Affordable Housing fund precisely because of the time the timing. I think that folks that the academy of art and university is willing to give up a little more in terms of their building precisely because theyre looking at the same numbers that were looking at. So i think were catching them at a good time, and that to me is worth some value. So i will be supporting this agreement. I did have a couple of questions. So one was about the vacated properties. What is the plan . Whats going to happen to those . And then two is the signage on jackson street. I heard the attorney say that it is a quarter of the size of what it could be according to code and that theyre willing to negotiate about the lighting with neighbors, so im wondering, you know, what thats going to look like and what assurance we have. But i also heard in your presentation that, you know or was it in your presentation, mr. Perry . Im sorry. Its getting late. Im tired about there being a twoyear window before there can be any new signage, so can you explain those two things to me. Maybe i can just comment president melgar okay. Thank you. So there are buildings they have vacated and buildings they will vacate. There are also two buildings they do not own, for academyrelat academyrelated entities on bluxom and wisconsin. In the case of bluxom, theyll need to go through the process to legalize those units. 121 wisconsin, they will need to have a code compliant use in there moving forward, and the same is true for other properties that have been vacated or will be vacated. They will need to obtain the planning permits as required. The academy may have Additional Details on how they intend to use those properties. Also, mr. Perry may have Additional Details on the signing requirements. So on the signing for 1900 jackson, there has been a bit of confusement on that. Signs are not regulated in this district. What they are identified in the planning code are as identifying signs. The requirement is one per frontage, which they have proposed, and the maximum size of 12 square feet, which they also have proposed. Indirect illuminating signing, which they have proposed, is also in the code. Im sorry if i may have forgotten the second part of your question. President melgar it was the first. It was the vacated properties, about what was going to happen. Okay. President melgar thank you. Commissioner diamond . Yes. There were two other points that were raised that maybe mr. Abrams or staff can respond to. Do you not have a code of conduct that people can refer to . Jim abrams. We have a code of conduct that people can call. And the second issue had to do with the comments that were raised about the cannery and what its being used for or not being used for or its intent. I dont know if staff can respond to that. Sure. So the cannery is located at 2801 leavenworth, within the c2 district. I believe that previously, the academy was using so there are there are other there are ground floor nonacademy retail tenants in the property. However, the academy was using the bulk of the cannery, including ground floor level space as part of the Development Agreement and the settlement, the academy could retain Institutional Uses above the ground floor which are permitted principally permitted in the district. And all of the ground floor must stay as retail uses, whether that be for the other nonacademy retail tenants that are there or the academy is permitted to operate retail uses, but it must be public facing retail uses. Thank you. President melgar commissioner richards . Commissioner richards i move to adopt the ceqa findings, including the statement of overriding considerations, adopt the resolution recommending approval with conditions, and the academy negotiating with the neighbors on the sign. Clerk as well as the master conditional use authorization . Commissioner richards absolutely. Clerk that was a second, commissioner koppel . If theres nothing further, commissioners, theres been a motion to approve the ceqa findings, approval the Development Agreement and approve the master conditional use authorization with conditions. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 50. Commissioners, i believe there is a desire through the chair to take item 22 out of order. Staff is still not here. President melgar yeah. We may take the next so i see a lot of folks here for item 22. I would like to take it out of order next, but the staff is not here, and i think the executive director is not here, either okay. So but the staff is not here yet, so were going to hear the next item, but then, youre next. Is that okay . Clerk right. So well take up item 17 has been continued to december 19, placing us on item 18 for case number 2016003994 cua at 55 belcher, conditional use excuse me, folks, if you are leaving or staying for that matter, if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate it. Excuse me, folks, we do have other business to attend to. So this is the conditional use authorization for 55 belcher and updated by the chair, we will be taking item 22 next. Good evening, president melgar and members of the commission. Linda ajello hoagland, Planning Department staff. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for the merger of lots creating one lot greater than 5,000 square feet and for the construction of a new residential Building Greater than 600,000 square feet of one area. The project consists of the demolition of one existing parking lot and the merger of three lots to create one 10,603 square foot lot to allow the construction of an approximately 27,374 square foot building with 27 class one bicycle spaces and 12 offsite parking lots which will be through the use of vehicle stackers. The project includes a dwelling unit mix of 12 two bedroom and 12 one bedroom mix and one studio which results in 48 of the units being two bedrooms. The project will provide 5, which is 18 Affordable Housing units to rent. The project will include 5,182 square feet of open space. Initial Public Comments regarding the project included concerns regarding the projects initially proposed 24dwelling unit count which would be subject to a 12 inclusionary Affordable Housing requirement. The project sponsor has subsequently revised the project to increase the number of dwelling units to 25, which is subject to the 18 inclusionary, which results in the five units as proposed. Additionally, over the past several months, the project sponsor has been working neighbors to further refine the design of the building and to address concerns expressed related to Building Height and privacy. The building will designate 18 of the units to the Inclusionary Housing Program and will replace an existing surface parking lot, therefore, no tenants will be displaced. This concludes staffs presentation. I am available to answer any questions as is the project sponsor. Thank you. President melgar thank you. Thank you, commissioners. John kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor. I know this has been a long day, so im going to keep this as short as possible. I think kind of the core of this project and the great aspect of this project is that its actually three narrow lots, and if those narrow lots were developed separate, thly,y would have about six units each, none of which would be Affordable Housing, and it wouldnt max out the density on this site. Were merging three lots, were going up to 25 units. Weve maximized the density beyond the 18 units that would otherwise be allowed here, and we do it with the existing character thats on belcher street. Weve had vigorous engagement with the neighborhood. You may remember we continued this three times to continue working with them. And really, with two groups. First, the immediate neighbors, weve had two design meetings with them since then. Commissioner richards attended one of them and helped facilitate it at the request of the supervisor. Weve made significant progress there. I think were going to have one of the neighbors speak to part of that issue tonight, and were really were trying to make it work for everyone so were willing to accommodate whatever the commission feels with respect to the design. D. T. A. Is very involved in this, as well. The Corporate Housing issue came up this summer. Weve been working with them. In fact, as of just a couple hours before this hearing, we came up with final conditions that were going to voluntarily request that the condition that the Commission Place on the approval of the project and this is something ive worked out with david troop, whos the president of dt a. Miss president , im happy to hand this over, but im happy to read it out loud. Condition one, no more than two units can be rented furnished at any time, and that only applies as long as this building is a rental project. If it becomes condos and individual units, this does not apply. Number two, sixmonth minimum lease on all units and that continues forever. Number three, rental to real persons with no renting to corporations or providers. The last caveat is if the interim term or legislation that supervisor peskin is currently moving through the board of supervisors passes, that would supersede these conditions and that would come into play in these conditions. So thank you for listening. I can repeat as necessary. Thank you. President melgar we got it. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Come on up, please. Anyone else who wishes to provide Public Comment, lineup on my left, and you can come up. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and engage with the developer and the city on improving the neighborhood. My name is brian kemler,