Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academy Of Art Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs settlement with Academy of Art University, securing about $58 million in city benefits
Summary
The commission recommended approval of a development agreement and master conditional use authorization that would legalize uses at 34 Academy properties, tie student housing to available beds, and secure roughly $58 million (about $37.6M for affordable housing) and other conditions in a court-supervised settlement.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Nov. 21 recommended approval of a judicially negotiated settlement and development agreement with the Academy of Art University (AAU) that aims to legalize and correct numerous long-standing, unpermitted campus uses across the city.
The package before the commission included CEQA findings, a city- Academy development agreement to implement the settlement, and a master conditional use authorization to consolidate approvals for noncontiguous post-secondary institutional uses. STAFF said the deal implements a previously negotiated term sheet arising from enforcement dating to the mid-2000s and a lawsuit that the City Attorney's Office brought to compel a comprehensive resolution.
Key measures and what the city gains: Planning staff summarized the financial package at approximately $58,000,000 in total monetary consideration, of which roughly $37.6 million is designated for affordable housing and another approximate $8.2 million is directed to the City's small-sites fund; additional funds cover planning penalties, enforcement cost reimbursements, unfair competition penalties and impact fees. The DA also includes a student housing metering mechanism (tying future enrollment to available student beds), limits on converting existing residential housing to student housing, shuttle and transportation demand management payments (including a $1.5M TDM fee), and restrictions on signage and new applications for a limited period.
Public comment and debate: Dozens of neighbors, tenants, advocates and former officials spoke in a packed public comment period, praising the enforcement work but questioning whether the monetary recovery fully compensated for lost SROs and other affordable housing. Speakers urged stronger housing recovery, questioned historic accessibility issues and demanded rigorous enforcement mechanisms. Planning staff and the City Attorney's Office explained the DA includes recorded guarantees against property interests, personal guaranties, and a financial review performed under court supervision assessing the owners' ability to make payments. The settlement was conditioned to require key payments up front and to record the DA against properties; if those payments did not materialize, the settlement would not take effect.
Vote and next steps: After public testimony the commission adopted the CEQA findings and recommended the development agreement and master CU to the Board of Supervisors; the action recorded a unanimous vote of commissioners present (5-0) to advance the package. The Board of Supervisors is the next decision point; staff said the DA would be recorded against properties and include enforcement provisions and a stipulated permanent injunction that would permit expedited court enforcement if city code violations reoccur.
Context: The multi-year enforcement and settlement process addressed dozens of properties the Academy occupied or altered without full entitlements. The planning department and other city agencies coordinated the settlement under court supervision so the city could require corrective construction, historic preservation work in some cases, replacement housing resources and lasting restrictions on future conversions.
