Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Clayton Condo Conversion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission delays condo‑conversion at 228–230 Clayton Street after testimony on past Ellis Act evictions

San Francisco Planning Commission · May 24, 2018
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighbors testified that Ellis Act evictions occurred at the property in 2002 and raised concerns about protected tenants and loss of affordable housing; the commission denied approval in an initial vote and then voted to continue the matter to June 7 to gather more information (5‑1).

The commission took public testimony and deliberated on a condominium conversion and subdivision request for 228–230 Clayton Street on May 24. Neighbors told the commission that an Ellis Act eviction removed multiple tenants from the building in 2002 and urged commissioners to factor the eviction history into their decision.

Lisa Aubrey, a nearby resident, described documentation she said showed Ellis Act evictions and the loss of low‑rent housing. Theresa Flandrick and other commenters cautioned that converting units to TICs and condominia can reduce affordable inventory and urged the commission to ensure eviction history is tracked and accounted for.

Planning staff said the department now routinely requests eviction history from the Rent Board and includes it in staff reports; staff noted that in some prior applications eviction information was not provided in the applicant’s materials but is now part of the process. The city attorney’s office advised the commission that it could add concern about Ellis Act evictions to the recital of findings but that the planning commission’s substantive authority to deny a proposal based on eviction history is constrained by the subdivision code.

After deliberation a motion to approve failed (the initial approval motion failed with Commissioners Johnson and Melgar voting no). The commission then voted to continue the matter to June 7 to allow staff to gather additional information and for the project sponsor to respond; that continuance passed 5‑1 with Commission President Hillis voting against the continuance.

Next steps: staff will collect additional records and the project sponsor may return with clarifications and supplemental documentation for the June 7 hearing.