Commission approves change of use at Outer Richmond property despite concerns about loss of residential care capacity

On March 11 the Planning Commission voted 4–3 to allow a change of use at 80130 Eighth Avenue (Outer Richmond) from a former residential care facility to private residential use. The vote followed a policy discussion about the diminishing stock of small residential care facilities in the city and pending interim legislation requiring conditional use review for conversions.

Gretel Gunther of the Planning Department presented the staff recommendation for approval with conditions and suggested the property’s Ground Floor could technically support a second dwelling unit in this RH2 zone. The building had operated as a small residential care facility historically but was sold in April 2020 and remained vacant at sale. The applicant’s representative said the current owners intend to occupy the building and were not seeking a second unit or an ADU because of cost and personal use plans.

Commission discussion centered on citywide policy to preserve residential care capacity. Commissioner Chan, among others, expressed concern about the loss of small care facilities and noted pending interim zoning controls (board file 190908) that require a conditional use authorization and findings for conversions; staff confirmed that the interim control (introduced October 2019) was still in place but limited in scope and set to expire in April pending further action.

Commissioner Diamond and others said small residential care operations may not be economically viable without city support and supported the owner’s plan to use the building as a private home. Commissioner Tanner said she sympathized with both preserving care facilities and the owner’s wish to age in place and ultimately supported approval without requiring a second unit. After debate the motion to approve the CUA without imposing a requirement for a second unit passed 4–3 (Tanner, Diamond, Fung and President Koppel voted “Aye”; Chan, Imperial and Moore voted “No”).

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff flagged the broader policy tension between protecting scarce residential care capacity and allowing property owners flexibility to reuse properties for private residential purposes. Staff recommended approval in part because re‑establishing two code‑compliant units was technically feasible, but the commission stopped short of imposing a unit‑creation requirement in this case. The decision leaves the door open for the Board of Supervisors and staff to pursue citywide policy changes addressing care facility preservation.