Details – or the lack thereof – of a proposed 24-unit residence project for young adults too old for foster care and youth-housing programs have raised the concerns of the neighboring community.
The Community Housing Partnership (CHP) is attempting to purchase the Edward II Inn, located on the corner of Scott and Lombard Streets, in the hope of transforming the building into a nonprofit housing project specifically for “transition-age youth” (young adults between the ages of 18 to 24).

“When foster youth turn 18 years of age, they no longer qualify to stay in the group or foster home that they’re placed in,” said Gail Gilman, the executive director of CHP, a nonprofit housing development broker that helps put together supportive housing projects for the formerly homeless in San Francisco. “So all of the funding that’s attached to those youth and follows them through the system completely ends. That’s why most foster youth have a high rate of homelessness, because they have nowhere to turn to or go.”

According to Gilman, the Edward II Inn was chosen because it fit many of the criteria that CHP was looking for. Typically, CHP responds to a city request for housing development. The plan is then sent to the Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH), which has dedicated funds collected mostly from the hotel tax.

“The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) has guidelines in it that the Mayor’s Office of Housing put out,” said Gilman. “This is based on research and a couple of recommendations by the [S.F.] Youth Commission that just published a report on how to provide quality housing for this age group. This property needs to be small – somewhere between 20 to 30 units – because research shows that these kids do better in smaller environments. It needs to be a property that’s vacant and in a low-crime neighborhood. Based on crime statistics, the Lombard Street corridor within the Marina has really low crime rates compared to other parts of the City. It needs to have access to community amenities, which is mass transit corridors, libraries and open space. So all of those factors are why we made an offer on Edward II.”

The total cost of the project is $8.4 million – $4.2 million will be provided by MOH, the remainder will be provided by a tax credit investor and state funding.

The inn currently has 29 hotel rooms, but the goal is to create 24 apartments with private bathrooms and a communal kitchen to promote a dorm-like feel. To do that, the zoning needs to be changed through a Special Use District to change the use and density of the project. The rezoning application has been submitted to the Planning Department and is currently under review.

The proposed facility would have a resident manager for building operations, a centralized maintenance crew, and a janitorial staff. There would also be an on-site social service worker to help with goal setting, community building, and any other goals the residents may map out.

CHP is planning to team up with Larkin Street Youth Services (LSYS) to help choose who will occupy the apartments. The two have teamed up before on smaller-scale community projects, but none of this caliber, especially pertaining to transitional housing.

“When we’re dealing with a specialty population such as kids that are 18 to 24, who are either exiting foster care or who have experienced homelessness, we decided that we’re not the experts in providing those services, but we decided that Larkin Street Youth Services is,” said Gilman. “So we approached [LSYS] and told them we’d like to do this partnership with you. CHP will purchase the building, we’ll develop it, we’ll manage it and own it, and we’d like you to become our service provider. And it’s something that we don’t do often, but we felt particularly with this population that we wanted someone who knew how to successfully have these kids transition into an independent life.”

Not all of the youth will be coming from the foster care system. Some will be kids who fell through the cracks and ended up homeless, but have been living in a trial-based transitional housing setting through LSYS for some time (between 18 to 24 months) and have shown that they are ready for housing that’s on a more permanent level.

Regardless of whether they were in foster care, each applicant will go through an individual screening process before being referred by LSYS. CHP will then check their backgrounds and hold their own interviews before an individual is chosen for an apartment.

“All of these kids have made a really conscious choice that they want to turn their life around or they want something different in their lives,” said Gilman. “They’re really serious about the opportunity of having this housing. They’ll be going to school, they’ll be in training programs, or they’ll already be working. They are very aware of the consequences of not paying their rent or not abiding by the house rules.”

Many within the community are not on board with the entire project, however. No one in particular is against CHP’s expressed purpose, but rather, its execution.

“It’s easy and unfortunate to just say that we don’t want this in the neighborhood,” said John Millar, president of the Marina Community Association (MCA). “That’s completely disingenuous. We never said, ‘Don’t you dare bring this into the Marina.’ We just said, ‘Why don’t you engage the community?’”

“Part of [the problem] is just the level of interaction with the community,” said Millar. “We have gone to all of the meetings, we’ve made efforts to reach out to the Mayor’s Office of Housing, CHP and LSYS, and none of our recommendations on the project have been incorporated. We have some concerns on how it’s all coming together. We’re prepared to work with [CHP] to make it work; our concern is that all of those efforts so far have fallen on deaf ears.”

According to Millar, there were three areas of concern that MCA felt needed a second look. The first was the total cost of the project, which MCA felt was too much; the second was the notion of fitting 24 individuals into a property that would normally be zoned for 16 in a group housing setting; and the third was the lack of interaction with the community. The last issue has concerned MCA the most. Millar noted that the community did not hear about the project from the City or CHP, but rather from a beat cop who had heard about it and told everyone in the neighborhood.
“In fairness, we should be allowed to know who’s living there if you want to put this project here,” said Millar. “We need to have a two-way dialogue and really understand what’s going on with this project.”

Millar noted that CHP, LSYS and MOH have all spoken at meetings so they could answer any questions the community had, but he felt the neighborhood’s concerns and suggestions weren’t being integrated into the project’s agenda.

Another concern expressed by the community is the close proximity of the Edward II Inn to the Bridge Motel. Situated on Lombard between Broderick and Divisadero Streets, the Bridge Motel is a notorious fixture in the neighborhood, known for drug dealing and prostitution. Many fear that a building full of illegal activity near housing full of impressionable youth could spell trouble.

“It raises concerns because it’s been a hotbed for criminal activity,” said Millar. “The City Attorney has already filed suit against them. Putting at-risk youth in that location could entice a criminal element, or vice versa.”

Gilman does not think the proximity is too much of a deterrent; however, she did offer to work with the community to help solve the issue.

“We have housing all throughout San Francisco,” said Gilman. “Just because there’s a property that’s not being managed well that’s nearby the property we want to own, to us is not a reason to not purchase a property. Our goal is going to be to work with the community to either come up with solutions for the Bridge Motel, or if the community feels that the Bridge Motel shouldn’t be operated, we’ll be alongside them.”

CHP is currently in escrow and moving toward a closing date on the Edward II property. To finalize the deal, the mayor needs to sign the loan documents and then give CHP the money it needs to complete the purchase. If everything is approved, the project could be operational in roughly three years.

According to Millar, MCA will formally ask the mayor not to sign the loan agreement, which is something that most of the other neighborhood groups have already done, along with District Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier.

“Some things need to be set in stone so that we as a neighborhood can sit down and effectively evaluate it,” said Millar. “[CHP] is a reputable organization and many of our members support them with their time and money, and we’re not opposed to a well-managed facility in the neighborhood. But you can’t push the project through and say ‘We’ll work on the programs later.’ Let’s put [the project] on hold, look at the program, look at what’s going to go in there – collectively as a neighborhood working with these organizations – and let’s put in something appropriate.”

According to Gilman, a project advisory committee will be formed, as is done with all of CHP’s projects. They plan to extend an invitation to the five community organizations they have identified in the Marina in hopes of spawning the two-way dialog Millar is hoping to achieve.