Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Institutional Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and tenants press Planning Commission over Haight Ashbury Free Clinic master plan and alleged housing violations
Summary
At a public hearing on the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic institutional master plan, multiple residents and advocates testified that clinic‑owned properties at sites including 586 Cole and Tiffany Gardens have code violations, unauthorized use of common open space and parking, and maintenance failures; staff and clinic representatives said program consolidation is planned and that operational oversight lies with the Department of Public Health.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on an abbreviated Institutional Master Plan filed by the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, which staff said is informational under Planning Code Section 304.5 and does not require approval. Clinic representatives described plans to consolidate programs into a Mission Street facility and to continue services across multiple sites.
A significant number of residents — including tenants, homeowner representatives and legal counsel for groups of owners — urged the commission and staff to investigate alleged violations of earlier conditional use permits. David Beaupre and Alexander Shapiro, residents of Tiffany Gardens, said the 5,000 square feet of common open space required by a prior conditional-use approval is being encroached by commercial tenants and equipment; Elizabeth Earhart, counsel for 24 residential owners, said garbage enclosures have been moved into the courtyard and HVAC equipment has reduced the usable open area. Residents asked the commission to direct staff and the code‑enforcement unit to investigate and ensure compliance.
Other commentators — including Clifford Fuente, Ted Lowenberg and several neighborhood residents — raised broader operational concerns about the clinic’s maintenance of residential properties, alleged failures to renew permits for particular properties, and claims about program efficacy and use of public funds. Some called for an audit of clinic operations and contracts. Planning staff and commissioners repeatedly noted that many operational and funding matters fall under the Department of Public Health’s purview, and staff said they are following up on tenant complaints and have contacted project sponsors to address site‑specific violations.
Commissioners accepted public testimony and emphasized that the institutional master plan hearing is intended to receive public input and inform planning staff and the project sponsor; they did not take action to approve or deny the IMP at the Nov. 2 session. Planning staff indicated they will follow up with code enforcement and that the clinic may revise the IMP in response to comments.
