Board pauses ruling on City Lights Partnership notice of violation amid legal questions over timeshare and hotel use

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued a contested notice of violation for Unit 9 at 2130 Leavenworth Street after a lengthy discussion over whether the units rotating occupancy is a hotel-like use requiring a conditional-use authorization.

Planning Department staff (Tina Tam) told the board the unit fits the planning codes definition of transient or hotel use when dwellings are occupied for fewer than 32 consecutive days and argued a conditional-use authorization is required in the RM1 district. "If... occupied for less than 32 days, its considered a hotel use," Tam said.

City Lights Partnerships counsel, Andrew August, countered that the condo is owned by a partnership and used by partners and their guests without evidence of compensation and argued the timeshare-conversion ordinance that might have applied was later sunsetted. August said the partnership model does not equal a retail hotel use and questioned the citys invocation of the hotel definition.

Neighbors, represented by Ed Hartley, urged enforcement and said the partnerships rotating occupancy effectively removes a dwelling from the housing stock and causes noise and community friction. Commissioners debated whether the planning codes language on "retail use which provides tourist accommodations" requires compensation or public availability. Several commissioners suggested a practical remedy: require an acoustical analysis and potential corrective measures to address noise concerns rather than immediate punitive steps.

After discussion the board continued the notice of violation to May 2 to give parties time to explore a sound-mitigation study and possible conditions the board could use to resolve neighbor complaints short of invoking criminal enforcement or protracted litigation.