Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880927 ( ../J ,\ AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 27, 1988 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. Old City Council Chambers 2nd Floor City Hall SPECIAL MEETING I. COMMENTS ,I , commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rio Grande Spa Amendment, Stream Margin Review (Continued) B. Displacement/Affordable Housing Code Amendments IV. ADJOURN MEETING Please bring the Rio Grande drawings from the previous packet. a.cov JESSE B. HEATH, JR. PARTNER 225-7065 MAYOR, DAY & CALDWELL 1900 REPUBLICBANK CENTER HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 TWX 910-881-6917 CABLE MAYDAYHOU (713) 225-7000 September 15, 1988 Air. C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galen.a Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear_ Mr. Anderson: P.O. BOX 61269 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77208 We bought our house at 606 N. Spring Street in December of 1986, which is across the Raring Fork River from Rio Grande Park. Our seller, I,ee Pardee, told us that the City had been using park or recreational land adjacent to Rio Grande Park for a snow dump, and that it (as well as the adjacent car impound_) was an illegal use. In the spring of 1987, it was not a major problem. But in the winter and spring of 1988 it became a major problem. The City, continued to dump snow on the adjacent park land; the dump trucks started their work around 3:00-4:00 a.m.. and the snow plow and loud banging of the trucks awoke everyone in our house. The snow dump grew daily until our view (which was a main reason we bought the House) became obstructed by the dump. Not on l�7 was the noise a nuisance, it also became, in effect, an involuntary conversion of our property rights, as well as a continuing viola- tion of the use of public park land. Apparently the City plans to continue this improper use, and now proposes to do further work which will result in more pollu- tion to the river, including the installation of a snow melting machine on that land. The notice we received from you does not give any indication as to the amount of noise or other_ adverse effects that machine will have on the land and neighborhood. How much more noise and environmental pollution are we expected to endure before legal action must be taken to stop this Nor. C. Welton Anderson September 15, 1988 Page 2 use and to recover the resulting damages? We oppose and object to the current use or this park land and any aggravation of the problem. Sincerely yours, J sse B. death, Jr. JBHoprf JBHC12/08 CC: Mayor Bill Stirling Mr. Nick Coates MEMORANDUM i TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Code Amendments: Provision of Affordable Housing DATE: September 23, 1988 PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to provide the P&Z with background information on the issue of displacement of existing residences/provision of affordable housing. The memo begins with a statement of the problem to be addressed by P&Z. Then, possible actions to consider are suggested. Next, an analysis is given of approaches undertaken by other communities to address the problem of displacement of existing housing units. Finally, a recommendation is provided as to what types of Code revisions should be drafted for P&Z initial review at the next meeting. PROBLEM STATEMENT: At the Council meeting on July 25, Bil Dunaway asked that the Council look into the problems being caused by the demolition of affordable housing units in Aspen. Council asked the Planning Office to return at the next meeting with a suggested approach to this problem. The possibility of the need for an Administrative Delay was discussed at that time, but no such action was taken by Council. At the August 8 Council meeting, staff introduced Resolution 26, Series of 19881 imposing a six month Administrative Delay on the processing of applications to demolish existing residential units and for subdivision applications for new residential development. The Resolution was unanimously adopted on that night and was followed by the unanimous adoption of an Ordinance formalizing the Administrative Delay on August 30. The purpose of these actions was to provide time for all of us to study the problems we are experiencing and adopt appropriate solutions. Staff and Council reached the conclusion that unless an immediate action was taken by the City, a segment of our housing inventory would be irretrievably lost and those few remaining units which are interspersed among free market developments would be eliminated. This change would be contrary to the adopted policy of the City as stated in Resolution 84-2 of the Aspen P&Z with respect to the Growth Management Policy Plan Update. This policy states that employee housing units should be provided "in small, dispersed housing opportunities., rather than in large complexes". This statement is consistent with the long-standing goal for social diversity. in the community, to avoid the long commute to work on the highway and the "housing ghetto" effect and to promote a socially and economically balanced community. The Housing Master Plan, which was first written in 1979 and which was most recently updated in 1987, recognized that "Preservation and better utilization of the existing inventory" was as important to solving the housing problem as production of new units. The major effort initiated at that time was imposition of a six month minimum lease restriction on new condominiums, to keep these units in the long term rental market. The problem we are facing today is different from that addressed in 1979. Instead of converting multi -family residential complexes into condominiums, the market now is demanding outright demolition of multi -family buildings and replacement, at lower density, with new, high -end townhomes or single family/duplex units. The new units are much more expensive than their predecessors and are resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. A second problem is that new development in Aspen (700 E. Main, 1010 Ute Avenue) is taking advantage of the cash -in -lieu provisions of the Code to create exclusive, free market complexes containing only a single "caretaker" type of employee unit. This means that some of the last remaining large tracts of undeveloped land in -town are not providing any mix of affordable units with the free market development. Provision of cash to the Housing Authority is certainly a benefit of such projects, allowing the public sector to address issues such as MAA/dormitory housing. However, production on -site brings new units into the market at the same time as impacts of free market development occur, provides for greater social diversity and year-round activity in our neighborhoods and lessens the need for commuting on S.H. 82 by a segment of our employee base. Moreover, if sites for expenditure of cash -in - lieu do not exist, are escalating in cost beyond our. limited resources or cause us to have to fight development battles better left to the: private sector, then it seems reasonable to bring the production and cash -in -lieu methodologies into better.balance. A third problem recognized during the process of adopting the Administrative Delay, is that additional incentives need to be provided by the Code to encourage production of affordable housing within the City. With the Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) having been repealed, there is no mechanism available to increase density or floor area in exchange for on -site housing in residential projects. Bonus floor area when on -site affordable housing is built remains available in the CC, C-1, O and L/TR zone districts. Furthermore, additional economic incentives beyond those currently available for affordable housing (ability to waive parking requirements and park development impact fees) need to be evaluated and implemented. Lastly, Council would like us to look at permitting "caretaker" dwellings in our residential zones as a means of creating affordable housing in town. A final problem identified by Council is the size of the new dwellings being built on the East End of town. Many of these houses are being built in the Office or C-1 zone districts, where the "sliding scale" for detached residential and duplex dwellings does not currently apply, while others are being built in the RMF zone district, which has the original, more permissive sliding scale in effect. These allowed FAR's may be providing too great of an incentive for replacement of older homes with new ones. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: We conclude that there are four interrelated actions which should be studied to address the identified problems. These actions are as follows: A. Should the City prohibit demolition of existing residences? If so, should the prohibition be limited to multi -family residences only, or should it extend to duplex and even single family residences? If not, should the City place requirements on the owner of property containing one or more residential units to replace the demolished units with affordable housing (which, according to the Code, means deed restricted employee housing) on the same property or elsewhere within the City of Aspen? B. Recently, standards were adopted which provide that when an applicant is required to provide employee housing and chooses to do so via cash -in -lieu, the P&Z and Council must determine whether payment of the fee or actual production is the appropriate method to satisfy this requirement. Should these standards be strengthened to require that a minimum percentage of every new residential project be on -site housing or housing produced elsewhere in the City of Aspen?` C. Should the City adopt additional incentives for the production of affordable housing? Such incentives could include, but not be limited to increases in density and/or floor area, waiver of fees, permission to build "caretaker" type units or legalize "bandit units" on single family and duplex lots and similar techniques. D. Should the sliding scale for detached residential and 'duplex dwellings which is now in effect in the R-6 zone district be applied to the Office, C-1 and RMF zone districts? We have contacted various jurisdictions around the country to see how they address similar problems. Following below is a summary of what we have learned from these efforts. A. Demolition/Replacement Alternatives Attachment 1 to this memo is a brief summary of the approaches 3 to demolition/replacement housing in effect in Santa Monica, Berkeley and San Francisco, California and in Hartford, Connecticut. These approaches contain the following elements: 1. San Francisco is the only community we found which prohibits residential demolition. This prohibition is limited to certain mixed commercial/residential zones only. 2. Hartford, Berkeley and Santa Monica all take the approach that demolition -man occur, but only when the unit will be replaced. 3. Replacement must be on -site in Santa Monica and Berkeley, while in Hartford it may be within the neighborhood or the entire City. 4. Replacement must be at a 1:1 ratio in all three cities, but in Berkeley and Santa Monica, this is measured in terms of number of units, while in Hartford this is measured in terms of net residential area which was demolished. 5. All three programs allow the payment of an in -lieu fee rather than requiring actual production. 6. The 'Santa Mon_ica,'and Hartford Ordinances apply to duplexes and multi -family .structures, while the Berkeley Ordinance also applies to single family structures. The above analysis indicates to us that other communities have successfully adopted and are administering regulations similar to those which we believe will help to resolve the problems we are experiencing in Aspen. We do not advocate adoption of such regulations to "solve" the entire housing problem; instead we see this program as one of our many approaches to maintaining our inventory and keeping up with the impacts of growth through the development review process. Using these approaches as models, we suggest that P&Z consider having us draft regulations which include the following elements: 1. There should not be a prohibition on demolition of existing structures. Such limitations could cause widespread disinvestment in low -end units, resulting in health and safety hazards, and might even lead to such radical actions as arson or vandalism. Our approach should focus on producing new affordable housing units in conjunction with redevelopment of the property. 2. Replacement should be required on -site, unless the owner can demonstrate that to do so would cause an extreme hardship or because it would be an inappropriate land use solution (standards would need to be written), in which case it would 4 have to be produced elsewhere within the City limits. It may be necessary for properties (public or private) to be designated where such units can be developed. 3. The replacement ratio needs to be determined by P&Z. The other communities use a 1:1 ratio, which is quite stringent. If we base this on units, rather than bedrooms, this will soften the requirement to a degree, as developers will produce small (studio?) units to replace units of various sizes. If we base this on bedrooms, we may want to back off of the 1:1 replacement level, toward a 50% requirement. We would not recommend following a square foot replacement approach in any case. 4. An in -lieu fee should not be permitted as an alternative to production. One of the main reasons for pursuing these amendments is to provide dispersed, in -town housing opportunities and to reverse the trend toward exclusivity. 5. The requirement for replacement should apply to multifamily units, but not to detached residential or duplex units. Instead, the owners of such residences are recommended to be subject to the requirement to include a "caretaker unit" in their redevelopment, as discussed in Section C. below. 6. Consideration should be given as to whether this regulation will take the form of a straightforward numerical requirement, or if it will provide for review (and therefore,' presumably, a discretionary decision as to applying or waiving the requirement) by P&Z and Council. If the review approach is taken, criteria for when to apply or waive the requirement will need to be drafted, which will probably revolve around the tenure of the previous occupant. We recommend avoiding this approach entirely, because of our experience with the prior condominiumization regulations. In that case, we required a deed restriction on property to be condominiumized, if its past tenure involved rental at rates which fell within our guidelines. This caused owners to increase rents 18 months prior to submission of a conversion application to avoid this limitation of the Code. It may be appropriate to differentiate between different zone districts when adopting the displacement requirement. For example, maybe diplacement requirements should not apply in- the L/TR, LP, CL and CC zone districts, unless unit has at any time been used as resident housing. B. On -Site Housing Requirements For New Residential Projects Because of the nature of this issue, we have not contacted other jurisdictions as to their approaches. Instead, we. provide the k following comments: 1. Earlier this year, following the review of the 700 E. Main project, standards were adopted for evaluating the method by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing which is required in a GMQS project. These standards, dealing with whether the site is an appropriate one for affordable housing, whether the City has plans to use cash - in -lieu funds and whether the method chosen is the most timely way to get housing produced, clearly place the final decision as to which method is accepted in the City's, not the developer's hands. 2. Staff believes this language may not go far enough, given our statements about the importance of on-site/in-town production of housing, rather than offering cash -in -lieu. We are concerned that the current language is still too discretionary and that a minimum standard, which an applicant may choose to exceed or which P&Z and Council can require be exceeded, should be added to this section. 3. The minimum competitive threshold in the residential competition is that at least 35 % of the project consist of affordable housing. It would seem reasonable to require that some percentage of the applicant's housing requirement (which we recommend be 75% of this 35% threshold,. or about 25% of the entire development) be in the form of housing produced by the applicant, either on -site or, when found to be a hardship or inappropriate there, elsewhere within the City of Aspen. The remainder of the requirement could be met by cash -in -lieu or conversion, unless pursuant to the review standards, it is found that 100% of the housing should be provided through production by the applicant. C. Affordable Housing Production Incentives We have spent considerable time reviewing the available literature and contacting other jurisdictions to determine if there are incentives to affordable housing production which have not been previously considered in Aspen or Pitkin County. We conclude that we have been using the types of tools which have been successfully applied elsewhere and that our efforts should focus on refining and broadening their use. The most widely applied incentive for affordable housing production is increased density, increased bulk and decreased setbacks/open space requirements. These techniques were incorporated in the recently repealed RBO ordinance, which permitted changes in underlying dimensional requirements when at least 50% of the project was affordable housing. C.1 RBO was repealed because it was not widely accepted within the community. While the concept seemed reasonable, specific projects were found unacceptable, generally because of increased FAR requested on the site. For this reason, we recommend that any new tool we develop not permit increased FAR, even though this will mean that less of the total FAR will be available for the free market units, whose sale price must be enough to offset the cost of providing employee housing. We believe that density increases are the most powerful incentive we can offer to developers. Our goal is for production of affordable housing to not cut into the number of free market units which the owner anticipated for the site. This may be accomplished through creation of an overlay, as was done with RBO, or by actually amending the dimensional requirements for certain zone districts (RMF and O seem most likely). The former approach will provide the greatest review capability and opportunity for public input, while the latter approach will be more straightforward and reduce the time in the review process. With either approach, a decision will need to be made as to what percent of the project must be affordable housing to be eligible to obtain the density increase. We recommend that P&Z take the approach which will minimize the review requirements and the risk of discretionary review in order to expedite the production of affordable housing. This means that we should not create a new zone district, but instead -should amend. the dimensional requirements in our current zones. It could also mean that we eliminate the special review requirement for obtaining bonus floor area, when the bonus is to be used for 100% production of affordable housing. Finally, it could mean having the Housing Authority take a much stronger role in the development review process. At the one extreme, the Authority could become a co -applicant and sponsor of such proposals. At the other end of the spectrum, the Housing Authority could be given a much stronger role in the development review process, replacing or supplementing the role of P&Z and.Council. We would like input from the development community as to setback and open space incentives. Many communities use "zero lot line" configurations as an incentive tool. We would be willing to investigate smaller minimum lot sizes, in conjunction with zero lot line requirements, if this will result in production of detached residential and duplex affordable housing. Economic incentives are another tool which have been widely applied elsewhere. Currently, waiver of park development impact fees and parking requirements are permitted in the Code. Other areas we could investigate include waiver of water tap fees, building permit fees and other fees under the control of the City of Aspen. Sewer tap fees cannot. be waived, since they are paid to the Sanitation District, not the City. 7 Caretaker unit provisions seem to offer the most hope for -- addressing the issue of added density in single family zone districts.. The RBO permitted density increases in districts such as R-6. R-15 and R-30, but was not successfully applied there. We believe that the problem with RBO in these zones was both the unwillingness of neighbors to accept added FAR and the difficulty of going through a rezoning process for the minor additional development return to the developer. We suggest that caretaker units be addressed through amendments to the use and dimensional requirements in residential zones and not through the overlay mechanism. We suggest that one additional unit (which could also be a legalized, existing "bandit unit") be permitted on a detached residential or duplex site, which would not count against allowed density. The area of the unit would count toward available floor area. One thought which has come forward would be to require the owner to build an additional unit when there has been demolition of a previously existing residential unit, while making it voluntary for all other properties. This approach has appeal in addressing the issue of displacement of detached residential and duplex residences. It would also make the previously discussed displacement requirements for multifamily residences more equitable, by having some requirement apply to all residential demolition/replacement activities. We recommend that P&Z have us draft the caretaker provision so that it is mandatory for detached residential/duplex displacement and voluntary in all other instances. One final recommendation we would make has to do with expanding the opportunities for construction of dormitory housing in the City. Presently, a dormitory is permitted within the LP and Academic zone districts. We suggest that a dormitory also be a permitted use in the Office and RMF zone districts, and that corresponding requirements be established for density, floor area and parking for this use. D. Application of Sliding Scale FAR to RMF, O and C-1 Zones Last year, when amendments were being proposed to the floor area ratio for the R-6 zone district, we recommended that they also be applied in the RMF, R-15 and R-30 zone districts. Since this proposal was not well thought out and the problem was not well documented, the P&Z declined to act on it. The development which has taken place in the East End this year (which contains RMF, Office and C-1 zoning) is evidence of a problem. The market demand for detached residential and duplex development is apparently so strong that zones intended for higher density residential and commercial/office uses are being redeveloped with high priced townhomes. These units are not affordable to residents of Aspen, are out of scale with older, neighboring residences and are outbidding local -serving uses (multifamily housing, offices and commercial development) which were once being built in these neighborhoods. We believe that a strong signal needs to be sent to the development community that development in these zone districts should be more compatible with the use and scale of neighboring properties and that these neighborhoods are not intended for exclusive, tourist oriented residential development. There are several ways that this can be done, in addition to the previously discussed requirements for replacement housing when demolition occurs and for a minimum percentage of on -site affordable housing for new development. One approach would be to eliminate detached residential and duplex residences as permitted uses in these zones, making them either conditional or prohibited uses. This approach has merit and deserves further consideration. A second approach would be to reduce the buildout potential for such residences in these zones by imposing a lower FAR for detached residential/duplex uses than is allowed for multifamily, commercial or office uses. Table 1 illustrates how the FAR of the R-6, RMF, Office and C-1 zones compare for detached residential/duplex uses. Table 1 demonstrates that the FAR allowed for detached residential and duplex uses in the RMF (the "old sliding scale") is the same as that in the R-6 (the "new sliding scale) up to 6,000 sq. ft. of lot size, and then allows for larger homes than in the R-6 for larger lots. While most development in the RMF zone is taking place on lots of 6,000 sq. ft., we feel that implementing this change will still be a worthwhile step. When looking at the Office and C-1 zone districts, it should be clear that imposing the sliding scale will have a pronounced effect. It is interesting to note that for lots of 3,000 sq. ft. or less, the 0.75:1 FAR is actually lower than the sliding scale. We felt last year that the 2,400 sq. ft. allowance was too high and continue to maintain this belief, although we do not expect you to change your minds. We would also note that the CC zone district, with its 1.5:1 allowed FAR, may also benefit from imposing the sliding scale. Detached residential dwellings designated as historic landmarks are listed as a permitted use in the CC zone district. By permitting such residences to have a maximum FAR of 1.5:1, we are certainly encouraging investors to speculate that enormous additions to designated structures will be permitted. We suggest that the sliding scale apply in this zone district as well. 9 SUMMARY: We have discussed a wide range of Code Amendment proposals herein. It is our intention that you review these proposals, add to and delete from them and direct us to return at the continuation of this hearing with specific language for your consideration. For ease of reference, we attach Table 2, which is a summary of all of the Code Amendments which we recommend. pzdisplacealts 10 F'' •• 1 1 1 Ul O O Ul 0 O O lU O O I--' Ul O O 01 O O �0 O O W O 0 0) O O O w 0 0 �I �P W W N . NO 01 4lb 0 O O O O 0 jr tt rk rRt Ul W W N 0 iU O O O 0 O O 0 f l-h l'h d �P tP W N . .A I Ul O N �P ~ R O O O y Ul O O .. H (D 1 I I I I O 0 00 O Cl !~-' d1 Pb N N O Ul 0 Ul O O U� N i I i I I O H � (p �-' it Ul O N Ul O J O Ul O N O Z • y ._. H Ul rn w 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul N o 4 rn LA) 0 0 0 0 0 ` �P 4�b W N r OW .-. O — O Table 2 Summary of Recommended Code Amendments 1. Adopt displacement regulations which: * do not prohibit demolition of residences. * require replacement of demolished housing on -site, but provide standards for when replacement units should be permitted to be built elsewhere in Aspen. * apply to multifamily residential demolition, but not to single family or duplex unit demolition. * set a ratio of 1:1 replacement, if based on units, or 0.5:1 replacement, if based on bedrooms. * do not allow for payment -in -lieu of production. * is not based on the form of prior tenure of the unit, but which could differentiate upon units based on their underlying zoning designation. 2. Adopt a minimum standard that 25% of any GMQS project must consist of affordable housing produced by the applicant on - site, but provide standards for when this housing should be permitted to be built elsewhere in Aspen. 3. Adopt the following affordable housing production incentive. techniques: density increase provisions for the RMF and Office zone districts, to be implemented via changes to the dimensional requirements and not through an overlay zone district; will need to establish the percentage of the project which must be affordable housing to be eligible for the bonus. * setback, minimum lot size and open space reduction provisions, if found beneficial by the development community; FAR bonus provisions should not be adopted. * eliminate the special review requirement to obtain bonus FAR when the project produces 100% affordable housing. * waiver of water tap fees and building permit fees when the project produces 100% affordable housing. * voluntary caretaker unit/legalized bandit unit provisions for detached residential/duplex sites. * mandatory caretaker unit provisions when single family/duplex displacement occurs. * permit dormitory in Office and RMF zone districts, with accompanying dimensional and parking requirements. 4. Consider the following techniques to make development of detached residential/duplex units in certain portions of town more compatible with the use and scale of neighboring properties: make detached residential and duplex a conditional rather than permitted use in the RMF, Office and C-1 zone districts. * apply the new R-6 sliding scale to detached residential/duplex uses in the RMF, Office, and C-1 zone districts, and to detached residential uses in the CC zone district. pzdisplacealtstable2 Attachment 1 Summary of Displacement Regulations From Other Communities 1. City of Santa Monica, California Applies To: Demolition of any multifamily structure (defined as including two or more units, so really applies to duplexes also). Requires That: Demolished units be replaced by the developer at a 1 to 1 ratio (that is, each demolished unit must be replaced). Replacement units must be of "like tenure", be comparable in size and amenities to replacement units and be built on -site. Allows That: An in -lieu fee may be paid rather than providing the units on -site (no criteria identified for when this will be permitted) and sets a schedule for payment of this fee. Status Is: The replacement requirement has been in place since 1983. The Council is considering amendments which permits payment of an in -lieu fee. 2. City of Hartford, Connecticut Applies To: Demolition or conversion of any housing unit, except does not apply to a detached single family house that is occupied by the owner. Requires That: An owner obtain a demolition permit prior to demolishing or converting residential units. The permit must certify the number of units to be demolished, the net residential area to be lost and list by name each tenant currently residing in the structure. The owner must agree to construct an equal number of square feet of residential area as is being demolished or converted which shall remain rental housing for at least ten years and which shall be built within the neighborhood, if possible, or within the City, at a minimum. Construction must be guaranteed by a bond or other security, which shall be forfeited if replacement housing is not built within 18 months of demolition of existing units. Requires payment of relocation assistance of $2,500 per person to displaced tenants. Allows That: Owner may contribute cash to a low income housing fund in -lieu of actually constructing the housing. Cost is based on multiplying 0.25 times amount of net residential area demolished times cost per square foot for new construction. Also permits owner to actually relocate tenants and to re -house them in the replacement units once they are built, rather than pay the $2,500 per person relocation fee. Also establishes an administrative relief board to partially or completely waive the replacement housing requirement if "literal interpretation of this article would prevent the owner from earning a reasonable economic return from the property. Reasonable economic return shall not necessarily be based upon the highest and best use of the property but upon any use which may lawfully and reasonably be developed on the property." I Status Is: Adopted in June, 1986 and in effect since that time. 3. City of Berkeley, California Applies To: All structures containing one or more residential units. Requires That: A demolition permit be obtained from the Board of Adjustments before any unit is demolished. Such permits can only be granted if the Board finds that: a. The demolition would not be detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the neighborhood and City, or that the existing housing is unsuitable for habitation and will be replaced by suitable housing; and b. The developer has provided alternative housing for the residents of the structure to be demolished; and C. At least the same number of units as previously existed will be built on the site and displaced tenants will be given the first choice in the new housing. Allows That: Units may be removed if they are currently nonconforming as to density and will be replaced by a conforming number of units. Also allows conversion of residential units to provide a community care facility for children, the elderly or the disabled. Status Is: Adopted as an emergency regulation in 1975, in effect ever- since, including some minor revisions. Planner for City notes that "... The Board of Adjustments is quite strict in enforcing the Ordinance and unless some powerful reasons are granted, it (a demolition permit) is unlikely to be granted". 4. City of San Francisco, California Applies To: All residential units located in neighborhood commercial and mixed use commercial zone districts. Requires That: Residential demolition be prohibited. Limits are contained in the use table of the zone district and set absolute prohibition on demolition if residential unit exists on first story of structure. Upper story demolition is typically regulated as a conditional use. Status Is: Currently part of zone district limits of San Francisco Planning Code. displaceregssumm