Edward II Inn Converstion to At-Risk Youth, Low Income, Group Housing

Email us to be added to our mailing list
or to get more involved.

The Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH), in conjunction with the Community Housing Partnership (CHP) and Larkin Street Youth Services (LSYS), is proposing a change-of-use of the Edward II Inn (Scott at Lombard) from a tourist hotel to a facility to house 24 at-risk young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 who are transitioning out of foster care, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, neglect and homelessness. 

This project will be owned and managed by CHP and LSYS will provide the counseling services. Residents and merchant of the Marina and Cow Hollow are concerned about a program that may unsuspectingly change the neighborhood for the worse. This does not mean that neighbors would not welcome housing for youth transitioning out of foster care that is well planned, conforms to current laws, economically practical and employs responsible management controls. The MOH’s proposal, however, fails in all of these areas.

For this project to be economically feasible for CHP, it will require Special Use District (SUD) - in this case, spot zoning - to increase the allowable group housing zoning density from 16 to 24 units. The SUD would also waive any parking or outdoor space zoning requirements. In addition, CHP seeks a Hardship Waiver from the Mayor’s Office of Disability to allow only one (1) out of the four (4) floors to be handicap accessible. Allowing exemptions for density, parking, open space and ADA for this one building is a bad precendent for this area and in particular the Lombard Street corridor.

What is critically lacking at the proposed Edward II, is the necessary level of supervision that youths this age require, particularly in the evening after work or school and late at night when trouble tends to arise. Currently, there will be one building manager on duty from 9pm to 9am to handle 24+ residents. These youths are also allowed a guest up to 14 nights per month so the total occupancy could be as high as 48 individuals. Housing older adults, seniors, or families together with these young adults would be one way to provide this guidance.

CHP has tried to convince the public that this proposal is just like the Arendt House, a new 40-unit senior residence on Broderick Street that CHP manages. The TAY facility proposed for the Edward II Inn is a much different situation than senior housing. As anyone who has raised kids knows, these are young men and women trying out their new adulthood. These 24 young adult tenants and overnight guests will need the sure guidance of several experienced adults to help them navigate through this difficult period, not just a desk person in the lobby as proposed at the Edward II.

This lack of supervision during the day and particularly at night is especially evident at 864 Ellis Street, a very similar facility for 24 young adults, managed by LSYS. During the first 21 days of June, 2010, 284 police calls were made to a one-block area around this address. The facility has raised the level of crime, noise and police calls for the neighborhood, exponentially. Neighbors will tell you that this youth facility, unlike the Arendt House, is not a good neighbor and they lament the day that it was opened.

Beyond the issues of inappropriate zoning and program design, this project will cost over $9.1 million dollars. That means over $350,000 per room cost - beyond any reasonable amount to spend at any time and especially during deep budget cutbacks for the City. If more time had been spent looking for a better building that does not require all these zoning exceptions and remodeling, then the tax payers dollars may have been used more wisely.

The housing model that CHP and LSYS are using – placing two or three dozen young adults together in an under-managed and under-supervised dorm-like building – is the cause of a problem which Marina-Cow Hollow residents want to avoid. Where the model has been changed to include seniors and families with the young adults (at other LSYS locations) the results have been much better for both the neighborhood and for the youth that is being served.

This project is poorly conceived and does not best serve the needs of this at-risk population nor the community in which it will be located. This project, in its current form, is opposed by ALL the residential and merchant associations in the Cow Hollow and Marina area along with many individual residents. Some of the key concerns include:

1. Mixed Population
Project proponents are trying to represent this project as a residence for "Former Foster Youth", similar to the Booker T. Washington facility. However, the Loan Agreement specifically identifies this TAY Sub-population as "Mixed", which does NOT limit the residents to "Former Foster Youth", they are in fact ANY 18-24 year old young adult who is considered to be at-risk. It's also important to note that although Larkin Street Youth Services will offer the on-site services during the day, they will not be the exclusive referral source for potential residents.
 
2. Special Use District Precedent
Current zoning at this location would permit up to 6 residential units or up to 16 units classified as Group Housing - having a shared kitchen facility. Project supporters have asked for a Special Use District to modify the zoning requirements and permit 25 units at this location, leaving each resident with an average of 250 square feet of living space. Zoning limits were created primarily to protect residents from landlords who subdivide buildings to generate additional income. That appears to be the situation here, where 25 residents will live in a facility with no outside living space and no parking.
 
3. Unreliable Financing
The total cost of this project is now projected to be $9.1MM of which $4.4MM is expected to be Federally Funded, the balance will be privately financed by investors seeking tax credits. Initially, the $4.4 MM will be provided by the City of San Francisco until the construction is completed, at which time CHP will seek to re-finance the facility with Federal funds. However, there is no guarantee that either the Federal Financing, or the proposed 9% tax credits will materialize and the City could potentially bear the entire $9.1 MM liability.
 
4. Exhorbiant Cost during Budget Cuts
At a total cost of $9.1 MM, the cost per resident is approximately $379,000 not counting the manager's unit. (The manager is a paid staff member of the building owners.) This works out to about $1,040 per square foot compared to an average of $615 per square foot for ALL OTHER PROJECTS. By comparison, a 16-unit apartment complex in Nob Hill recently sold for $2.8 MM or roughly $175,000 per unit - where the average unit was 920 square feet and had its own kitchen!
  
5. Non-ADA Compliant
The current plans for this facility will not allow for most of the units - with the exception of the ground floor unit - to be brought up to ADA standards. Clearly this is a disservice to both the residents and service providers who will live and work in this facility; and an offense to our neighborhood. It also seriously jeopardizes the likelihood that this project will be Federally financed as proposed as Federal financing has strict ADArequirements.
 
6. Increased Crime in Neighborhood
Numerous residents, and several police officers, have indicated that they believe this facility will ultimately reduce the safety of the neighborhood and increase crime. At present, those claims are based solely on personal experience and have not been substantiated by factual data. However, this is sufficient reason for the Mayor's Office of Housing to delay this project until a more detailed study of crime patterns can be completed and it specifically negates the assertion of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by the Mayor's Office of Housing.
 
7. Lack of Screening for Youths and their Guests
With respect to the potential for criminal activity, the project supporters indicated that some residents may have a criminal history, but that they will screen their applicants prior to admitting them to the building. Clearly minor legal infractions are of little concern. However, to date, the project sponsors have not defined a specific screening criteria or outlined the services that will be provided on site. More importantly, as the criminal records of minors are sealed by the court, there is no credible way to ensure that violent offenders are not housed in this facility.