Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Laundromat Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission denies ADU conversion at Filbert that would displace longstanding laundromat
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 4–2 on Sept. 10 to disapprove a proposal to convert two ground-floor commercial spaces at 990–998 Filbert into ADUs, citing the eviction of a small, neighborhood-serving laundromat (Tons of Bubbles) and neighborhood access concerns for seniors and renters.
Deanna Caprini Foose, owner of Tons of Bubbles laundromat at 998 Filbert Street, told the Planning Commission she was "blindsided" by a landlord application to convert the commercial storefront into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
"If my laundromat is removed and replaced by an AD unit, where will all these residents go to remain proper hygiene?" Foose said, describing the laundromat as the only nearby option for many elderly and mobility-limited residents and arguing that the business provides an essential health service during the pandemic.
Staff planner Matthew Chandler explained the project was proposed as part of a mandatory seismic retrofit and local ADU program that allows conversion of ground-floor commercial space in this RM1 zoning district. Chandler said the department received 28 letters of opposition expressing concern about loss of the laundromat and that staff found no "exceptional or extraordinary" circumstances that would require denial under current code; staff recommended approval.
The project sponsor and designer, Chris O'Connor, said the owners have spent roughly $17,000 on plans and permitting, that the 998 lease had expired, and that seismic retrofit work made conversion the preferred long-term option to bring the building to current safety codes. O'Connor said owners would provide new laundry facilities inside the building for tenants and disputed some distance claims about nearby laundromats.
A substantial public response favored retaining Tons of Bubbles. The office of Supervisor Peskin submitted comments noting laundromats tend to serve denser, lower-income neighborhoods and indicated a policy proposal to extend ADU protections to limited commercial uses was under consideration. Dozens of callers, including seniors and long-term renters, described the laundromat as essential and said alternative sites were not practicable given hilltop topography and walking distances.
Commission deliberations focused on two strands: (1) whether laundromats are a neighborhood-level "needs-based" social infrastructure and (2) whether the commission has legal authority to require retention of a particular tenant or use. The City Attorney advised the commission it could not specify particular tenants and that state law limits commercial rent control; whether the commission could condition approval on retaining a laundromat depended on zoning and discretionary-review tools.
On a motion to take discretionary review and deny the conversion of the commercial spaces to ADUs, citing the eviction of a neighborhood-serving small business and the corner retail character of the site, the commission voted 4–2. Commissioners Diamond and Fung voted against the motion; Commissioners Chan, Imperial, Moore and President Koppel voted for it.
The action does not itself create citywide protections for laundromats; staff and several commissioners urged legislative work to examine broader policy options to incent landlords to retain essential neighborhood services.
