Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Tenant Rights topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission Disapproves Condo Conversion at 668–678 Page Street After Hearing Eviction and Displacement Testimony

San Francisco Planning Commission · March 8, 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

After extensive public testimony and staff findings raising concerns about displacement and a prior eviction of tenant Iris Canada, the commission voted to disapprove a proposed condo conversion at 668–678 Page Street.

The San Francisco Planning Commission on March 8 voted unanimously to disapprove a condominium conversion application for 668–678 Page Street, citing the planning department’s findings that the proposal increased vacancies, involved displacement of an elderly tenant within three years of the application, and included materially problematic submissions to the city.

Planning staff presented an updated motion clarifying subdivision code citations and findings that the application violated subdivision code section 1386 for several independent reasons, including increased vacancies and a displaced elderly tenant. Staff recommended disapproval based on these findings and an evaluation against the general plan housing element.

Project sponsor representatives and some owner‑occupants defended their conduct and disputed assertions that they intentionally displaced tenants. Speakers for the project said several owners had spent years and substantial outreach trying to resolve tenancy and design issues and that changes to unit configuration were pursued in good faith.

Dozens of public commenters, tenant advocates and faith‑based groups told commissioners that Iris Canada, a long‑term resident, had been subject to eviction actions (Ellis Act attempt and a sheriff‑carried eviction) tied to the building’s ownership changes and that her eviction contributed to her death. Speakers urged the commission to deny the conversion as a matter of policy against displacement of seniors and vulnerable tenants.

Commissioners reviewed the staff findings, asked clarifying questions about enforcement and the 3R/unit‑count reports, and debated whether restoring additional units or protecting the building’s historic interior were feasible. After discussion Commissioner Moore moved to disapprove and the commission voted to disapprove the condominium conversion application unanimously.