Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Institutional Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission presses Academy of Art on institutional master plan, enforcement and legalizations
Summary
Commissioners used an update on the Academy of Art University’s environmental review and institutional master plan to press the university and staff on outstanding unpermitted properties, pending IMP updates (due Nov.), and enforcement actions including penalties accruing on at least one property; the department recommended grouping AAU cases by project type for efficient review.
Department staff updated the Planning Commission on ongoing environmental review and compliance work for the Academy of Art University (AAU). Staff said AAU submitted an Institutional Master Plan (IMP) that the commission accepted in 2011 and that a two‑year update was due in November 2015. The draft EIR and associated Institutional Master Plan update are expected to be part of a set of hearings and subsequent conditional use authorizations for scores of AAU‑owned properties across the city.
Commissioners and members of the public raised longstanding enforcement concerns. Several speakers urged tougher action, citing hundreds of buildings the university owns and years of noncompliance. Staff said enforcement is in process and that one property (460 Townsend) has been referred to the City Attorney and has accrued penalties approaching half a million dollars; other properties are being processed through conditional use applications and environmental review. The zoning administrator explained that penalties are typically on hold while appeals are pending but that the department has pursued enforcement where appropriate.
Commissioners debated process and sequencing: whether to ask the Board of Supervisors to consider legislative amendments to legalize some AAU uses before the commission acted on individual CUs; whether the commission should hear the nine properties that are not approvable under current code as an early batch; and whether denying some sites before the EIR is certified would be legally or practically useful. The City Attorney advised that the commission may disapprove projects before CEQA review is complete (disapproval does not require an EIR), while also noting that the EIR will allow more informed decisions and that denied uses may still require enforcement follow‑up.
Staff recommended grouping AAU properties for hearings by project type or zoning district to increase efficiency; several commissioners urged a stronger focus on the IMP update and on requiring the academy to clarify its long‑term operational and housing strategy. The commission asked staff to bring back the IMP update and said it expects to review changes carefully when the update and the EIR responses are complete.
Next steps: AAU to submit the two‑year IMP update (deadline in November); the Department will bring that update and a subsequent EIR certification package back to the commission for review and possible conditional use actions. Enforcement and referrals to the City Attorney will continue where administrative remedies are exhausted.
