Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants conditional delay for 2278 15th Street notice of violation, lets family stay while requiring compliance by end of 2030
Summary
The Board of Appeals found a violation at 2278 Fifteenth Street for an unauthorized interior opening and removal of cooking facilities that merged two units, but delayed enforcement so the household can remain in place while requiring compliance by Dec. 31, 2030 (or earlier on sale/vacancy), and ordered a notice of special restrictions be recorded.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals resolved a challenging housing enforcement appeal on March 11 by finding a notice of violation (NOV) valid for 2278 Fifteenth Street but granting the owners a conditional compliance schedule designed to avoid immediate displacement.
Appellants Jean Benoit Levy and Claudia Dalendorfer told the board the family purchased and has lived in the TIC for years; they said a single interior door connecting Units 4 and 5 predated their ownership and was central to their ability to live as a family in the two one‑bedroom units. An expert who inspected the property dated the door to the mid‑1990s.
Planning staff presented permit records showing the 2016 permit plans did not show the interior opening or the removal of cooking facilities and said the door and kitchen removal constitute a unit merger under planning code §317. Staff said revocations of short‑term rental certificates had already resulted from prior reviews and that the opening was not permitted.
After hearing arguments, the board made a finding of violation but fashioned an accommodation designed to limit displacement: it required the owners either to restore code‑compliant separate units or otherwise come into compliance by the earlier of December 31, 2030, or the sale or vacancy of one of the affected units, and it ordered a notice of special restrictions be recorded against the property to memorialize the board’s action. Penalties would not accrue while the owners diligently pursue a conditional‑use application or otherwise meet the compliance pathway. Several commissioners stressed the unusual nature of the accommodation and encouraged the family to pursue the planning process promptly.
The board’s action recognizes the violation while giving the household a multi‑year compliance window intended to protect the family from immediate displacement and to preserve an opportunity for a lawful resolution through the Planning Department’s conditional‑use pathway.
