Planning Department reports enforcement options after Frank Norris Place sales conflict

Code Enforcement staff presented the status of enforcement at Frank Norris Place (1326 Polk Street) at the Jan. 22 meeting, summarizing a complex case in which a 32-unit project granted a double-density bonus for senior/disabled occupancy appears to have been marketed and sold without consistent disclosure that the units were restricted to seniors.

Dario Jones of the Planning Department told commissioners the project received a permit under the planning code’s double-density bonus, which requires units to be designed for and occupied by seniors or physically handicapped persons. After a complaint in November 2007, staff reviewed the sponsor’s marketing and sales materials and found ads and listings that did not disclose that the units were for senior occupancy. The sponsor’s attorney responded that the project complied with federal 80/20 guidelines and that 23 units had been sold with six occupied by non-seniors, but staff said the double-density bonus is intended by local code to yield 100 percent senior occupancy.

The Department issued an alleged notice of violation and then a violation notice; the Board of Appeals later upheld the planning department by finding that state and federal guidelines did not supersede the local planning code’s requirement. Staff said discussions with the responsible parties produced lists of senior and non‑senior occupants, but the lists lacked documentary proof. Department staff estimated there may be as many as 14 non-senior‑occupied units and reported the project sponsor had filed for bankruptcy, complicating enforcement.

Staff proposed a range of remedies and immediate procedural changes to reduce the risk of similar problems: clarifying double-density language in the planning code, requiring filing of notices of special restrictions prior to approvals, requiring CC&R amendments and notification of CC&R changes to the planning department before certificates of final completion, and requiring marketing materials to be submitted to staff to ensure accurate language about senior or handicapped occupancy. Staff also suggested reserving any remaining unoccupied units for affordable senior housing, placing funds equivalent to the loss of senior units into a senior-housing program, collecting neighborhood-impact fees for the Polk Street district, and working with the City Attorney to develop enforcement approaches under bankruptcy conditions.

Multiple residents and buyers testified about confusion and harm — several said they purchased units under representations that the building followed an 80/20 (or 100%) senior occupancy model and now face uncertain resale value or eviction risk. Commissioners pressed staff about the limits of planning authority and asked that the department continue coordinating with the assessor, rent board and mayor’s housing office to track units, notify occupants and explore acquisition or preservation options for blight or empty building scenarios.

The department said it will pursue code clarifications and provide commissioners a written update and data on existing double-density projects. No formal remedial order was finalized at the meeting; staff requested feedback and commission input on feasible next steps given bankruptcy and ownership complexities.

The presentation referenced planning code provisions used to grant the double‑density bonus and the Board of Appeals ruling upholding the department’s enforcement action.