Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission orders corrections after contested Leavenworth discretionary review; requires facade restoration and removal of interior connection
Summary
Following months of enforcement activity and public objections alleging unpermitted excavation and a merged unit, the commission took discretionary review of 2028 Leavenworth, directed restoration of the front facade and removal of an interior stair that connected units, and approved a variance with standard conditions.
San Francisco — The Planning Commission on Jan. 16 took up a high‑profile discretionary review for 2028 Leavenworth Street after neighbors alleged that a project sponsor had merged three rental units into a single residence and performed unpermitted excavation and facade alterations.
Kevin Chang, who raised the issues with the commission, told the panel he believed the sponsor "illegally combined 3 unit building into 1 single family home" and requested the commission require a return to the prior condition. Staff described a complex enforcement history: an earlier 2014 permit had reconfigured units, subsequent work had altered the facade and added an interior connection that effectively merged units, and enforcement staff opened a notice of violation.
Planning staff recommended restoration of the front facade to the previously approved condition, removal of the unauthorized interior stair that connected what otherwise would be two legal units, and regularization of a modest rear infill only through a variance. After extended public testimony from neighbors and design professionals, the commission voted to take discretionary review and approved staff recommendations; the zoning administrator indicated intent to grant the variance with standard conditions.
The commission discussed penalties and systemic enforcement questions during the hearing; several neighbors urged stronger sanctions for professionals and owners who pursue late‑stage legalization rather than obtaining permits up front. Staff acknowledged limits in code enforcement and said remedies in this case focus on restoring the building to legal configurations and applying appropriate conditions.
Next steps: the sponsor must comply with enforcement conditions, restore the front facade as specified by staff, and remove the interior connection. The commission approved the discretionary review and associated variance with staff conditions.
