Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sfa Institutional Master Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission hears San Francisco Art Institute institutional master plan; staff accepts IMP as complete

San Francisco Planning Commission · May 12, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission received an informational Institutional Master Plan (IMP) from the San Francisco Art Institute, accepted the submission as complete for the record and directed staff to add a clearer neighborhood map showing student housing locations and related details.

The Planning Commission received an informational Institutional Master Plan (IMP) for the San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI) at its May 12 hearing. Planning staff reported that the submitted IMP contains the information required by Planning Code Section 304.5 and recommended acceptance as complete for the Commission’s public‑hearing record.

SFAI representatives outlined the institution’s historic campus at 800 Chestnut Street, additional leased properties used for graduate studios and student housing, and plans to relocate graduate studios to Pier 2 at Fort Mason. Staff noted two buildings in SFAI’s portfolio (717 Sutter and 630 Geary) that have been used as student housing and described a path to bring those uses into formal compliance through conditional use applications and building permits. Staff also noted public comments summarizing concerns about reduced public access, noise, traffic, and trash; staff recommended accepting the IMP but offered to request additional information if the Commission desired.

Commissioners asked for a clearer, map‑based presentation that shows the physical relationship between student housing locations and campus uses, and suggested staff work with the sponsor to supply that map or a memo for the Commission’s files. No formal action was required beyond accepting the IMP as complete for the record; staff said the acceptance does not constitute approval of any use or building entitlements and that any conversions or conditional use authorizations would come back to the Commission as required.

The informational acceptance preserves the Commission’s role in future conditional use or conversion requests related to the IMP and gives staff direction to provide additional locational mapping requested by commissioners.