Examiner Editorial: Too many loopholes in senior condo buildings

SAN FRANCISCO — A developer pledging to build or convert a San Francisco building for elderly and/or disabled residents becomes eligible for advantages from the Planning Commission. Depending on the project’s specifics, the developer might obtain exemptions for increased height limits, smaller units and less or no parking spaces. There might also be grants from various housing support programs and reduced permit fees.

In return, The City fully expects the developer to produce what was promised: attractively priced units with excellent accessibility for physically limited residents. However, for still-unresolved reasons, that is not quite what happened with a converted historic building at 1326 Polk St.

In 2002, the Planning Commission allowed a development company to build an extra story and double the number of units normally permitted under city codes on the condition that the housing would be occupied only by tenants 55 years of age or older, or who have physical disabilities. Instead, an anonymous 2007 tip alerted officials that these special units were being sold and rented to able-bodied younger people.

Six of the building’s 23 occupied units housed unqualified residents, inspectors found. The investigation also discovered that the marketing agency was not mentioning occupancy restrictions in online or print advertisements. A 47-year-old attorney who lived in the building for a year said the Craigslist posting and the salesperson for his one-bedroom rental each said the building was “mostly” for seniors.

City enforcement efforts began in November 2007 when the Planning Department issued a “notice of alleged violation” to the developer. After receiving no response, a “notice of violation” was sent in February. This time, an attorney for the current owner sent a letter March 12 claiming that his client was allowed under state and federal law to market up to 20 percent of the units to younger people.

Six of the 32 units — 23 of which are occupied, or nearly 19 percent — housed persons younger than 55. And the owners apparently never informed The City they were unilaterally changing the signed agreement. So when they filed to have the Board of Appeals overturn the violation notice, they lost in June.

Now, the Planning Commission is trying to resolve the mess and gain more of those pledged special-needs units without going through time-consuming lawsuits. Officials say they are mired in an “unprecedented” code-enforcement quandary and are concerned about preventing similar problems elsewhere. Adding to the confusion is that the building owners have declared bankruptcy.

To The Examiner, the lesson here is that the entire senior/disabled housing effort requires considerably stronger transparency and oversight. Specifics of different variance deals may leave unnecessary confusion, and more follow-up is needed to ensure that builders are fulfilling their obligations to The City.