Planning commission moves to draft denial for controversial 670 Page condo conversion after testimony about elderly tenant eviction

A highly contested condominium conversion application for 668–678 Page Street dominated the Jan. 11 Planning Commission meeting, culminating in an intent‑to‑deny motion and a continuation so staff can assemble additional records.

The conversion would change a six‑unit building into condominiums. Planning staff initially reported the application complied with the subdivision code and the standard expedited conversion criteria; the staff record included a residency table that listed the contested unit as "vacant since 2012" (staff packet). Neighbors, tenants and advocates strongly disputed that characterization and presented testimony and photographic evidence asserting that Iris Canada, a long‑time tenant who celebrated her 100th birthday in the unit, was evicted in February 2017 and that belongings were removed by sheriff—s deputies (public testimony, multiple speakers, SEG 5585–6610; SEG 5750–5760).

Tenant advocates and legal representatives argued that the city—s subdivision code (Section 13.86) requires denial of condo conversions where an elderly or permanently disabled tenant was displaced. Housing Rights Committee and Senior & Disability Action witnesses said the application omitted or mischaracterized eviction history and occupancy information on the subdivision application form (claims that an owner listed the unit as vacant and reported no evictions). The Chinatown Community Development Center and other groups submitted a multi‑organization letter asking the commission to reject the application for knowingly submitted incorrect information (public comment segments, multiple speakers).

Property owners and applicant counsel disputed aspects of the public narrative, noting court findings and the complicated procedural history of a life‑estate agreement and later litigation; they said the owner had previously attempted to keep Iris in place through a life‑estate agreement and that court proceedings later found she did not meet the life‑estate residency condition. Owners argued the application met the code requirements in the staff packet and urged the commission not to substitute political considerations for the code analysis (applicant presentation, SEG 5550–5560; SEG 5630–5638).

After extensive public testimony and commissioner discussion about incomplete or conflicting records in the staff packet, the commission voted unanimously to issue an "intent to deny" and continue the item to Feb. 1 so staff can prepare a draft denial or additional findings that address whether the subdivider knowingly submitted incorrect information and whether the application complies with Subdivision Code Section 13.86. The hearing record shows commissioners wanted DPW, the Rent Board and city attorney input and time to compile missing documents before a final action (motion passed unanimously 6–0 on record).

What happens next: staff will prepare materials for the Feb. 1 hearing and draft findings for an intent‑to‑deny to be considered by the commission. The continuation gave the commission time to review court records, eviction and sheriff—s documentation, and DPW processing notes that bear on the conversion eligibility under Section 13.86.