I dont advise you name a particular subcontractor in your motion. You can say that there should be a qualified professional to oversee it. Thank you. That makes sense. Ok. So you want to reword that. Step up, please. Thank you, commissioner hyland. Just to followup on the Square Footage issue, what is in front of you is a certificate of appropriateness, its not locking in the area which were going to the Planning Commission to discuss next month. In your motion it does say 49,364 right now. Our request is currently for 49,999 and thats why we just requested to add the motion. I can accommodate all parties you can amend that language to reach up to 49,499. Thats the way to do it. Thats fine. We have a motion. Second. Could you expand on the qualified professional to review what to oversee the implementation of the architect actual treatments of the facade. Thats accepted by the maker of the motion . Yes. Oh, yeah. Thats fine. I was trying to find where it said the Square Footage. Just generalize that. Youve got it. Ok. So, the crazy motion is, has it been seconddegreed. Been 2ed. Theres a motion te this matter with conditions as have been amended to include all storefronts be consistent and that it be continued to be reviewed by staff including a qualified professional to oversee implementation, the architect actual features of the facade and the Square Footage be amended to reflect up to 49,999 square feet on that motion commissioner black. Yes. Commissioner foley. Yes. Johns. Yes. Pearlman. Yes. So. Yes. Hyland. So moved. That motion passes 60. That places us on items 8ad for 2008 of 0586e. 2019012970pcdba and coa, for multiple properties owned or leased by the academy of Art University and you will be considering adoption of findings planning Code Amendments and Development Agreement on master permit to alter and a master certificate of appropriateness. Before you get started, commissioner black, she has a disclosure to make. Yes, thank you, very much. Id like to disclose that i have a closed personal friendship with a member of the senior staff of the academy of Art University. This will not effect my ability to be impartial in considering the matter today and i am hoping that this can relate to all four of the actions that we need to take today. One, disclosure. Thank you. Thank you president hyland and members of the commission. We are pleased before you today with this package which resolves the outstanding enforcement issues weve had over the last few years with the academy of Art University. This dates back to 2006 when we received our first draft of an i. M. P. That is the institutional master plan from the academy of Art University. And our review of that document we found that numerous academy of Art Properties have been converted and changes of uses to the Institutional Uses and housing uses without benefit of permit. As a result, we should notice violation beginning in 2007. As a result of the enforcement process, that has led to an Environmental Impact report and the e. I. R. As well as another document called an existing site technical memorandum and the they reviewed these documents a few years ago and they were adopted in 2016. Since that day, we have published an addendum to the e. I. R. Which was published last month and in 2016, the City Attorney initiated litigation against the academy of Art University for the on going violations and this resulted in settlement discussions that lasted for quite a few months resulting at the end of 2016 with the global term sheet for global resolution as it was called. This started the process of coming in for the appropriate applications to legalize it. Since that time theres been additional discussions and oversight by the court to get to the resolution that we have before you today. There have been significant benefits for the city that are outlined and the materials before you to the city and to its residents. Involved a variety of planning fat and its other departments like mayor of housing, community development, dbi and last but not east the City Attorneys office which has been instrumental in getting us this position we have today. We con be here without the hard work the City Attorneys office and Kristen Jensen who is here with us. Andrew perry has been instrumental in getting us to this point and getting these projects approvals before you and for the Planning Commission tomorrow. Its no small feat to comprehensively review one project but have multiple dozens of properties is truly a feat so i appreciate his endless hours and tireless efforts to get us to this point. For preservation support, katie and alex provided tremendous support to our department and will present to you today. Andrew will be presenting on the details of the Development Agreement and katie will present on the permit to alter and alex on the certificate of appropriateness. Thats all i have for you but ill pass it off to andrew perry and if you have any questions we have a full compliment of staff to help you answer those today. First, to that contributing fact, we have two staff here today that have not presented before you. Increasingly, seasoned, relatively new staff. Katie willborn front row is a Northwest Quadrant current planner and preservation tech specific. She has a a masters. Prior to the Planning Department, she was a consultant in University Instructor in her hometown of kentucky. Shes first arrived to the Planning Department as a preservation intern and worked on that russian heritage Historic Context statement. And secondly, alex westoff, the icp, is a senior planner and preservation tech specific for the Southeast Quadrant and began with the Planning Department in 2018. He held Public Sector planning position force a decade with experience in current and long range planning, historic preservation, Climate Resiliency and more. I worked for the marine county Development Agency for five years and prior than that for the delta protection for seven years. He holds a masters in city planning and Landscape Architecture from uc berkeley. Welcome to them. Welcome. Good afternoon. I will now spend a few moments discussing the actions before the commission today. In order to move the project and the lawsuit towards the resolution. Can i get the projector. Thank you. So, first before the commission may take any other action, the Commission Must adopt ceqa findings including a statement of overriding considerations for which you have addressed motion in your packets. As was mentioned, the project e. I. R. Was certified in 2016 and the addendum was published in october of this year. Second, the Commission Must act on a resolution with a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding the proposed ordinance which includes both the adoption of a Development Agreement, as well as planning Code Amendment thats are necessary to implement the project. The Development Agreement is between the city and the Stephens Institute or the academy of Art Institute and provides city approval consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the basic elements of the Development Agreement include firstly the legalization of Academy Properties or sorry, academy uses at 34 properties throughout the city and these 34 Properties Include three addictional properties that have not been used previously by the academy and it represents the withdrawal of academy uses at nine sites throughout the city. In legalizing the uses the academy will be pride t requires to bring the properties into compliance with the relevant codes. Secondly, the legalization or corrective modification of past building alteration thats have been made without permit. And this is particularly relevant to the properties and what is before this commission today. Third, the Development Agreement calls for the pavement by the academy and its llc of an estimated 58 million to the city and this includes an Affordable Housing benefit of 37. 6 million to be solely for Affordable Housing purposes and as well as an estimated 8. 2 million to the city small sites fund. The balance of the monetary payment includes planning code civil penalties, reimbursement for planning enforcement costs, unfair competition law penalties and payment of impact fees. Fourth, a Student Housing metering agreement and of the student body that percentage increases overtime. The academy agrees not to promise new students more Housing Units than are disposal and providing additional Housing Resources the academy may not do this through the conversion of existing and the last and two a cod knee results in the city stock that are subject and timing and provisions and outlining times when the other elements of the d. A. Must be carried out and the occur. The facilitate implementation of the project and of particular relevance to the hpc the amendments would create a consolidated approvals process for large postsecondary institutions such as the academy and this consolidated process are referred to as master certificates of appropriateness or master permit and it allows for any number of coas or ptas under a single application. And so lastly today, the commission is being asked to act on these applications for master certificate of appropriateness and master permit to alter which my colleagues will go no specific details about. Before turning it over to them, i would like to provide a bit more context for your decisions today and relation to final approvals and completion of the settlement. Tomorrow the Planning Commission will consider project approvals and will take similar actions in adopting ceqa findings acting on a resolution to approve the planning Code Amendments and three the master conditional use authorization instead of the master c of a and pta. The ordinance including the Development Agreement and approval and the target of having all project approvals effective by the end of february and then pursuant and Development Agreement and work at each property over the course of the following two years. So i will turn it over and available for answers and or other aspects of the projects and and thank you. Thank you. Thank you and good afternoon, preservation commissioners. Katie from Department Staff. We are before you today with two entitlement items regarding the academy of Art University or the academy. For the master permit to alter in the certificate of appropriateness for 12 properties. Which are designated historic landmarks within landmark districts or within conservation districts under article 10 and article 11 of the planning code. To quickly summarize, the academy is a private for profit Postsecondary Educational Institution and owns, operates and or leases several properties. Three are individually designated article 10 landmarks, one within an article 10 landmark district and eight of these properties are located within an article 11 conservation district. Article 10 and article 11 properties represent some of the highest degrees of architecture and associations within San Francisco built environment. This subject properties which pe undergone several building modifications overtime at these sites without benefit of permits. Properties which are individually landmarks or located within landmark districts shall be presented as a master certificate of appropriateness. Properties that are within conservation districts shall be presented as a master permit to alter pursuant to article 11 of the planning code. Although not all of the projects scopes would usually constitute a public hearing, staff reviewed and will present all of the article 10 and article 11 properties today under their respective single masterren title. Set fourth in the global term sheet. Today with the master certificate appropriateness and master permit to alter, we are two entitlement steps close tore bringing the academy into compliance. Planning staff, myself who will present on article 11 properties and alex who will present on article 10 properties, will give a brief presentation on the context of each property and its scope of work. Properties within article 11 jurisdiction are shown in orange and those subject to article 10 are indicated in blue. As previously mentioned, not all of the building modifications that have been undertaken without benefit of permit would have required a public hearing and in some cases, the scopes of work could have been completed without public notice. Had the applicant gone through the correct channels and due process as outlined in the planning code. To indicate the level of review that would be required for each property scope of work we have outlined the presentation in the following way. The properties which could have received over the counter approval at planning information counter are indicated as empty squares. Those that constitute minor or administrative review under the delegation agreement, are in thick bordered boxes and those which would typically be presented before you at a Commission Hearing are committed as solid squares. Here the properties and the reviews that will be required had the on going enforcement not brought us to this point. Without further adieu we will begin with the larger quantity of Properties Located within our article 11 conservation districts and entitled under the master permit alter. These eight properties are split between two conservation districts with the majority of properties falling within the kearney Market Missions sutter and the remaining two properties falling within the newmont gomery missions Second Street conservation district. Here are the subject Properties Locations and respective designated categories and mapped in relation to one another and their districts boundaries. The six Properties Located within the kmms district are regulated by the designating ordinance and appendix e of the planning code and their building modifications were reviewed using section 6 and 7 of that code section. The similarly the two newmont gomery properties were reviewed under section 6 and 7 of article 11 a plen dictio11 appendix f. 79 new montgomery has gone changes. Replacement of windows, installation of lights and anings and the legal establishment of the three projecting signs on the corners of new montgomery, mission and jesse streets. The work, which has been done without permit, seeking with legalization includes the small display boxes for student work, the roll up garage doors along jesse street, and the two infilled windows at the upper story. Lights, conduits and awning will be alter throughout to be brought into greater conformance with current Design Guidelines and code provisions. No new alterations are proposed at this location. Also along newmont gomery is thy replacing press metal panels at the ground story with tinted glazing and painting the space as a form of advertisement. The scope of work is largely restorative, the metal paneling will be reinstated where windows have been inserted and the monolithic corners will be repainted to match the original pigmentation. The mural and Street Furniture shall be legalized and remain as this alteration activates and improves the condition of a dormant alleyway. 620 sutter was purposebuilt in 1918 for the Young Womens Christian association who occupied the building for 70 years. This attributing organization can still be seen in the engraved belt course above the main entry. And under the scope of work, the full restoration of that have yw caen gaving. Can we get the projector. The free restoration of the engraving is proposed by qualified specialists as well as Building Maintenance and repair and replacing the existing lighting with more appropriate recessed fixtures. The free form security cameras, the main entry aning and the ventilation system shall be legalized as is. The structure at 625 sutter has large anings that can seal the ground floor and the upperstorey windows were place