Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Press Planning Department on Academy of Art IMP Compliance; Public Calls for Enforcement
Summary
The committee held a prolonged discussion on Institutional Master Plan compliance, with speakers urging faster enforcement against the Academy of Art University for acquiring properties and operating changes without permits. The Planning Department outlined the IMP process and said an EIR certification hearing is expected in spring; the committee continued the matter for additional action.
At a Jan. 21 hearing on Institutional Master Plans (IMPs) and student housing, supervisors, planning officials, former planning commissioners and members of the public pressed the Planning Department over long‑running enforcement actions involving the Academy of Art University (AAU).
Supervisor Aaron Peskin opened Item 5 by recounting the I.M.P. ordinance’s purpose — a 1976 tool to require early public notice and planning commission review for hospitals and postsecondary institutions — and said AAU’s history of incremental property acquisitions and unpermitted changes has produced years of enforcement work. Former Planning Commissioner Engman described the ordinance’s origin as a neighborhood protection mechanism and said an IMP process was intended to prevent late‑stage surprises to neighborhoods.
Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department, outlined the IMP rules (full and abbreviated thresholds, content requirements including textual and graphic plans, two‑year updates, and a three‑month waiting period for conditional use applications in certain cases). Sanchez recounted a long enforcement timeline for AAU going back to 2002, discussed notices of violation and penalty accruals on at least one property (penalties cited as accruing at $250 per day and exceeding $500,000 on a referenced parcel), and said the Academy’s EIR is expected to go before the Planning Commission in the spring for certification.
Members of the public and planning commissioners urged more decisive action. Brad Paul, a long‑time civic participant, told the committee AAU’s pattern of buying buildings and operating them as student housing reduces city housing stock and urged the Planning Commission to consolidate conditional‑use hearings and deny approvals where appropriate. Commissioner Catherine Moore said the AAU submissions lack substantive metrics and recommended the Planning Department adopt clearer standards for acceptable IMP content. Former Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and others criticized perceived delays in enforcement and recommended the city attorney pursue stronger remedies if compliance is not achieved.
Supervisor Peskin asked the department to consider issuing a new round of notices of violation and flagged an AAU letter limiting staff access for an ETSM review as troubling; he moved to continue the matter to the call of the chair for further work with the Planning Department and Planning Commission. The committee passed the continuation motion.
What’s next: Planning department staff said they expect the AAU EIR response to comments and a Planning Commission hearing on certification in the spring; the committee continued oversight and requested follow‑up on notices of violation and enforcement options.
