Commission deadlocks on Shotwell conversion; community urges preserving board-and-care use

A heated public debate over the fate of a fire‑damaged building at 628 Shotwell dominated the Planning Commission’s Dec. 16 meeting. Neighbors, homelessness and aging-services advocates, and local nonprofits urged the commission to take discretionary review and deny a developer’s request to convert the former boarding care facility into private residential units — an outcome they said would further erode scarce care housing in the Mission.

Staff told the commission the structure was fire‑damaged in 2015, has remained vacant since and that the project, as revised, proposes two residential units (a five‑bed unit plus a two‑bed unit) without substantially altering the exterior massing. Staff also explained that an interim zoning control intended to protect recently closed residential care facilities applies only to facilities that had closed less than three years prior to an application; because this property had been vacant longer, staff found the application was not subject to that specific interim control. The project sponsor and attorney said they had offered a right of first offer to nonprofit providers, conducted outreach and that no nonprofit had secured the funding to rehabilitate and run a care facility.

Many public speakers — including the Mission Economic Development Agency, the Coalition on Homelessness, HomeRise, United to Save the Mission and others — urged the commission to use its discretionary authority to preserve the site as a board-and-care or other community-serving use. Speakers stressed the city has lost a substantial share of board-and-care beds in recent years and cited both the public-health and equity implications of further losses.

Commissioner Chan moved to take discretionary review and deny the conversion on the basis of extraordinary circumstances and threats to public health and safety. That motion produced a 3-3 tie and failed to reach the 4-vote threshold needed to take a discretionary review. An alternate motion to continue for additional months to allow funding conversations also failed 3-3. Because the project is principally permitted and the commission did not successfully secure a discretionary review, planning staff indicated the building permit application would proceed within the staff review process. Commissioners who favored preserving the use asked staff and community groups to continue working with potential operators and city departments to seek funding for a community-serving use.