Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academy Of Art Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Academy of Art settlement and development agreement after decade‑long dispute
Summary
The committee advanced a settlement and development agreement resolving longstanding litigation with the Academy of Art (Stevens Institute). The package legalizes uses at 34 properties, requires corrective permits or withdrawals, and obligates roughly $58 million in payments (about $37.6M for affordable housing). The measures will go to the full Board for final action.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee on Dec. 9 transmitted to the full Board a settlement and associated development agreement that resolves a decade‑long enforcement dispute between the city and the Stevens Institute, doing business as Academy of Art University.
Planning staff summarized the package as a multi‑part settlement: a settlement agreement requiring payments and remedies; a stipulated injunction for judicial enforcement; a development agreement to legalize and govern future approvals at campus properties; and financial guarantees. The development agreement legalizes academy uses at 34 properties after the academy agreed to withdraw uses at certain sites and add three properties along Van Ness Avenue. The package includes corrective permitting or legalization of prior unpermitted alterations for historic properties.
City staff estimated the academy’s total financial obligations at approximately $58 million, including roughly $37.6 million dedicated to affordable housing (to be prioritized in the supervisorial districts where the academy previously removed housing without permits), $8.2–8.4 million to the city’s small‑sites program, civil penalties, enforcement‑cost reimbursement, impact fees and penalties under California’s unfair competition law. The DA also ties student enrollment and housing availability through a student‑housing metering agreement and calls for a chapter‑41 residential‑hotel room swap that yields a net gain of eight residential hotel rooms subject to chapter 41 protections.
Staff noted that the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions unanimously recommended approval of the master permits and conditional use authorization and urged committee action to move the settlement package forward. Public commenters who had pushed for enforcement over many years acknowledged the outcome and pressed for strict enforcement of timelines and housing provisions. Several members of the committee thanked planning staff and the city attorney’s office for the lengthy work to bring this package to resolution.
The committee accepted the ordinance and agreed to forward the settlement and DA to the full Board without recommendation so the full Board can consider the package and the accompanying code amendments enabling consolidated master approvals for historic and planning reviews.
What happens next: The settlement, DA and code amendments will be considered by the full Board; the DA includes deadlines and enforcement provisions for the city’s remedies if the academy fails to meet obligations.
