Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds 22 notices of violation against Academy of Art University
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted to deny 22 appeals filed by the Academy of Art University, upholding notices of violation and penalty tied to long‑running unpermitted conversions and environmental‑review deadlines. The board said the zoning administrator did not abuse discretion.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 22 denied appeals by the Academy of Art University and upheld 22 notices of violation and penalty issued by the Planning Department. The decision follows testimony from city planners and the university’s counsel about a protracted environmental‑review process and unpaid land‑use entitlements.
The university’s attorney, George Harris, told the board that the city and its consultants expected to complete environmental documents by a July 1 schedule and urged the board to postpone penalties until that deadline. Planning Department Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez urged the board to uphold the notices, describing a long pattern of conversions, repeated consultant turnovers and incomplete permits going back to 2006.
At hearing, Sanchez said the department found many of the Academy’s properties lacked appropriate entitlements and that administrative penalties had been used to compel compliance. Harris argued CEQA and the city’s ESTM process did not excuse withholding approvals for existing uses and cited court rulings treating prior uses as CEQA baselines.
After deliberation, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny all 22 appeals. The motion carried, with the board recording that the zoning administrator neither erred nor abused his discretion in issuing the notices. The board’s action effectively leaves the Planning Department’s enforcement and the potential administrative penalties in place; board staff noted a rehearing request process remains available under board rules.
Why this matters: The appeals concerned a large portfolio of properties and multi‑year environmental reviews whose outcome will affect multiple pending permit applications and the city’s enforcement posture toward institutional conversions. The outcome keeps the department’s penalty leverage in place while any remaining environmental reviews proceed.
The matter was heard as part of the Board of Appeals’ June 22 calendar; the board voted to deny the appeals and uphold the notices, 4–0 (with one recusal).
