>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the mar22, 2021 meeting of the land use committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by dean preston and aaron peskin. i am myrna melgar. do you have any announcements? >> yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members city employees, the committee room are closed. members will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to statewide stay-at-home order and

all local state and local directives. committee members will attend through video and participate as if they are physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. channel 26, 78 or 99. we are streaming the number on the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. opportunities to speak are via by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting id is (187)859-1223. then pound and pound again. when kecked you will hear the discussions -- when connected

you will hear the discussion but in listening mode only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. call from a quite el location, speak slowly and turndown your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment by e-mailing the land use and transportation clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the haves and made part of the file. comments may be sent to city hall. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of

april 6 medicals otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you very much. will you please call items one and two together. >> yes, item 1. resolution extending zoning controls for six months and findings for proposed change from residential care facility and affirming appropriate findings. 2. hearing to receive six month report on interim zoning controls for removal of residential care facilities. call 415-655-0001. if id (187)859-1223. press pound pound. if you have not done so already. dial star 3 to line up to speak for these items.

the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair. >> supervisor mandelman: we are joined by jacob to share remarks. welcome. >> thank you, their melgar. good afternoon supervisors. supervisor mandelman was not able to join you today. the items before you today are resolution to extend existing zoning rolls that require a conditional use for proposed change of use away from residential care facility to other use and required hearing on the planning department report for those controls. with respect to the controls supervisor mandelman original originallyproposed these in reso the long-term care crisis in the

report from the city long-term care coordinating council assisting living working group. that report documented the alarming rate at which we are losing these facilities. as of 2018, san francisco had 43 fewer than in 2012 t.242 critically living builds were lost in those six years. the trend has continued since then with an additional loss of 11 facilities including 226 beds in the two years since that report was issued. the intent of these controls is to discourage the further closure and conversion of facilities and slow loss and and dress the challenge. when the supervisor put forward the 18 month controls we did not participate the covid pandemic

to divert attention and resources from efforts including this one. today's resolution would extend by additional six months to the 24 month period for an entire rim control as we consider making the conditional use permanent and also look at responses that may go beyond land use controls. operating subsidies or identifying ways to match existing operators with interested buyer that may revisit the city policies on looking for acquisition as well. these conversations are underway and we look forward to discussing those solutions that may be available to us with you all in the coming months. on the controls themselves i want to note that it is important to know we are only just beginning to see the first projects come through to the planning commission that

triggered the conditional use requirement. first one was heard this month. another one in april. we feel like it is useful to keep the controls in place to look at how the projects turn-out as we consider permanent planning code requirements. we understand there are other projects in the pipeline or out there being considered for conversion. those are all the more reason to keep the additional scrutiny that comes with these controls. as you will recall i was here last week. that was to request a continuance on this item. the reason was we needed time to prepare amendments necessary to properly reference modifications to these controls that had been made in december 2019. they were omitted in the extension resolution before you today. i have circulated the amendments to you all and to your staff. let me just briefly summarize

for your consideration. first, there is amendment to the long title of the resolution as well as to the finding on page 2 line 24-inch concluding reference to resolution 539-19 which was that resolution that modified the original controls in december 2019. second set of amendments is non substantive changes to rear to another refer to zoning districts called out in the monitoring report and incorporated in the findings page 3, lines 22-25. the amendments to clarify the resolution today is extending and modifying the original controls. the extension retaining language of the original resolution from october 2019 rather than the language that had been added subsequently in resolution 53919. this is achieved with proposed

amendment to the resolved clause which would read resolved that this interim controls imposed by resolution 430-19 and modified by 539-19 are here by extended and modified to revert to the controls by resolution 430-19 and shall remain in effect until october 11, 2021. supervisors for the record the operative control extended by this resolution is the language you find in the following resolve clause on page 5 line 21-23. that language reads as drafted. further resolved any proposed change of use from residential care facility as defined in 102 and 890.50e of the planning code shall require conditional use authorization while the controls are in effect. that remains the language for

clarity. supervisors while these will have the effect of continuing the controls they do not carry the language from the modifying resolution. we are no longer requesting this as committee report but do appreciate your consideration and ask that you consider moving these amends forward so the resolution can be considered for recommendation at the april 5th meeting after recess and so that the controls can be extended prior to their current expiration date april 11 of this year. chair, melgar, we have susie smith of the deputy director of policy and planning at hsa available to provide background on the loss of facilities and answer any questions. aaron starr of the planning department is here for item 2, required report on the controls. with that thank you so much. i am available for any

questions. thank you. >> thank you so much. we do have susie smith here from the human services agency who i believe is prepared to make a brief presentation. ms. smith, welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me today. jacob asked me to provide context to the 2019 report and update the data to share with you. are you going to share the pdf? thank you so much. i am deputy director for policy and planning at the human services agency. we developed a report in 2019 that provided context. in the next slide is the name of the report supporting affordable

assisted living in san francisco. next slide we talk about the background for the initiation of this report which was the long-term care coordinating council which many of you know is advisory to the mayor on planning and delivery to look at the integrated and acceptable long-term care delivery. this particular study was sponsors by those needing assisted living were not able to access it. it has an impact on low income residents. the next slide we just share is the findings between what is known and the documents and data. we see a steady decline in assisted living across the residential care facilities for the elderly as well as the adult

residential facilities and the impact is particularly with smaller boarding care homes and those adult residents. >> are we missing ms. smith? >> for example -- >> susie, maybe if you turnoff your camera. you are cutting in and out. >> i am sorry. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i must we having internet issues. decline in both residential care facilities for elderly as well as adult residential facilities. since 2012 the city has seen 9%

decline in assisted living beds. we have seen 5% decline in rcfds, 22% decline in the adult residential facilities. this is being driven primarily by small facilities which have been more affordable for low income residents and community members. since 2012 we have seen a staggering 40% decrease in number of beds available in small board and care homes. then on the next slide shows the information about the residential care facilities for the elderly. looking across the facilities and beds. here we see between 2012 and 2018, san francisco lost

21rcfes which represents 26% decline in number of facilities. most of this was in the smaller homes. the bed capacity has decline add much as 5%. impact is disproportional. on the next slide we look at adult residential facilities which have been more pronounced trend. we had 22 fewer arps since 2018 than we did in 2012. most of these are small facilities. out of the 42 licensed arp, 27 were actually board and care homes with six or fewer residents. we are talking about very small facilities more home like and more appropriate for certain members of our community. for this hearing, supervisor mandelman's office asked to update trends since 2019 study.

we provide that data on the next slide. we have about 2300 beds in the residential care facilities for the elderly. we have about 440 beds for adults under 60. we see the change since the last report. we have seen some losses pan some gains. facilities lost driven by board and care home closures. we had five of these smaller facilities compared to 2018 report. most closures predate this zoning policy. closures occurred prior to october 2019, four. two closures on the mission and two in sunset and one in inc. el

side. there is expansion of larger facilities over 100 beds. this is mainly due to opening of the new frank resident memory care at sf campus for jewish living and launch of the gardens at the home. switching to the arp. we have seen a net loss of four arp and 40arp beds since 2018. this is driven by the closure of four boarding care homes operated by one company. the closure of aurora residential care homes which is a series of four universities in the excelsior area.

the losses were offset by one board and care opening. then we saw the closure of a larger 24 bed facility in the mission which closed in august 2008. the larger policy issues with the ability to actually financially make these facilities viability is getting increasingly difficult as property values increased and costs to run the facilities increased. we can't spread the staffing costs out accordingly. i am happy to talk about the solutions beyond zoning if that is of interest and answer questions for the committee. thank you for the opportunity to share the updated data. >> thank you, susie. if there are no questions for ms. smith or my colleagues.

supervisor preston, go ahead. >> sorry i was muted. i want to ask ms. smith on the demand and the need side. what the trends on? we see the concerning picture with so many beds and facilities lost. i don't be know if we have data on the need. is the need flat, rising or changing in any way we are tracking? >> yeah, we are seeing the demand has not flattened. it is increasing as the population continues to age. on the prior report we haven't updated numbers on demand. we see in terms of mental health behavioral health beds and it is

helpful for homelessness. we are trying to get support as well as older adult population aging. we haven't seen a decline in the demand. i can provide updated data if interested on that side as well. >> thank you. i don't think from my perspective it is necessary with this zoning. moving forward to look at the bigger policy issues, it would be great to have that as part of the presentation so we know what we are doing with terms of up met demand. i appreciate supervisor mandelman's office work on this crucial issue when the time is right after public comment i would be happy to move the amendments which supervisor mandelman has offered and appreciate your time in walking our office through the fairly technical and complicated

interaction between the original resolution and the changes and now getting this right to paysicly back to the extension of what was the original purposes of this ordinance. this resolution is essential and just appreciate all of the work on it. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor preston. thank you, susie. for last presenter we have mr. aaron starr of the planning department to discuss the interim controls. >> good afternoon, supervisors. aaron starrs, legislative affairs. they were adopted october 1, 2019. they were in effect for 18 months which expires april 11th. it requires conditional use

authorizes from residential care to any other use. in addition to standard c.u. findings they outlined four other findings that we must consider in reviewing this application. those are outline understand the report. when the packet was published there were none. this facility was a residential care facility in what was previously single family home that accommodated about 12 patients. opened in 20,000 and closed april 2019. it was sold to the current owner in -- sorry 2020. the new owners seeked to change from residential care to single family home. staff recommendation to approve

conversion. condition on selling two units instead of one since the property is zoned rh-2. during the hearing the financial feasibility was called into question by commissioners. planning commission voted to approve conversion with only requiring one unit which is what the applicant had wanted. vote was 3-4. this is a split vote not over the conversion over whether or not to require two units per staff recommendation or just one. in addition to this application there is another one pending before the commission. that is located 628 shot well street. this is similar to 801 in that it would convert closed have been care facility to two. it is calendared in planning but continued. there are two other applications to create new residential care facility also.

1535 van dyke and 5500 mission street. they are to increase capacity of existing residential care facilities. those were at 1301 bacon and 658 shot well. department is aware of three sites to delicense out of residential care and operate as group housing facility. 141ly land, 128 highland street and 220 delores street. they are through the housing and community development and h.i.v. age related care facilities. because of advancements they month longer need medical care required in the early days of the epidemic. that concludes my report. i am available for questions should you have them. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions for mr. star? i have a question. that is about the staff

recommendation for the conversion that you just talked about. i know that this issue of losing beds and facilities is something that we have put in the medical services master plan. we all worry about it. you know we have created this interim control process of coming before the planning commission. it puzzles me as to why the staff recommended this. could you talk about that decision how we weigh the policy of needing to preserve facilities against other uses and things we need like housing. >> yes, it is a difficult one. in this case staff was looking at the fact that the facility had already closed and the believe had already been sold. the interim controls didn't have

an impact on the sale or closing of the facility. i think they were just saying balancing the need for housing and wanted to turn into a housing unit and the fact the residential care facility was long gone at this point. it wasn't coming back. >> i don't mean to give you a hard time. i don't think you were the staff who recommended it. that is exactly what the interim controls were for to give any buyers pause that they have to go through this process if they intend to do something besides the facility. >> yes. i think that when this happens they probably weren't aware of that at the time. one problem is that a lot of people aren't aware the interim controls are there and not part of it and it should be identified by the seller. i am not sure if there is a solution to that.

it is also difficult for us if we tint let the conversion go and there was no buyer for it, it would be sitting empty. it is a difficult decision for the planning department. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> madam chair, if i may venture to speculate. i suspect that if you were on the planning commission you would have voted in the disisn't. we just had a case at 424 francisco street, very old. the board voted unanimously granted it wasn't about residential care but it was about a history. the idea that the successor interest is lost of all sins -- washed of all sins of the previous owner does not meet the

policy goals supervisor mandelman and we are trying to advance. no disrespect to staff or the planning department in this recommendation or the 4-3 vote by the commission, but ultimately this is a policy of the lawmakers and c.u.s are appealable to this board of supervisors. sorry for speculating, madam chair, as to how you might have voted. >> thank you, supervisor. okay. if there are no other questions or comments. madam clerk. let's take public comment on this item. >> we are checking for callers. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak for items 1 and 2. if you are on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted.

it looking like we have one person in queue. unmute the first caller, please. >> hi. thanks everybody. i amnate. with national union of healthcare workers. i am calling to support this item about conditional use for residential care facilities. we represent mental health clinics for the eph contractor and operate an adult residential care facility. 33 bed facility on broderick street. we were recently involved in some negotiations involving their lease, which was renewed recently. i just wanted to add that it is

our experience that this policy has created additional protections that helped safeguard these beds. i think that it will continue to do so. in our experience it totally changes the balance of power with the private property owner here. changes their economic incentives. they cannot quickly flip it. we think, you know, when you look at the data of how this policy is working, it is not just the conditional use permits you guys have already looked at but you should think about deterrent effect that it has with the care facilities that are currently out there. especially in this category which are public contracts but private landowners, property owners. what we think is playing a protective role in this case,