Zoning Administrator defends 2015 dwelling unit merger approval at Greenwich Street property

The recent San Francisco government meeting focused on a significant property dispute involving a single-family home at 1281-1283 Greenwich Street. The discussion centered on the legitimacy of a dwelling unit merger that occurred in 2015, which allowed the property to be converted from two units into one. The property was purchased in 2020 for $18 million, marketed as a single-family home, with the new owners unaware of any potential code or permit issues.

The legal representatives for the current owners argued that the merger approval, granted by the zoning administrator (ZA) in May 2015, remains valid and vested under common law principles. They emphasized that the approval has not expired, was not appealed, and should not be subject to recent changes in city planning codes that restrict such mergers. The representatives pointed out that the administrative approval process for mergers was more lenient at the time of the approval, allowing the ZA to grant such requests without needing to go through the planning commission.

Key points raised included the assertion that the city’s recent code changes do not apply retroactively to the 2015 approval. The representatives argued that the city’s planning staff had misunderstood the implications of these changes, leading to confusion about the status of the property. They maintained that the approval was final and that any subsequent attempts by the city to withdraw the application were ineffective since the approval had already been granted.

Commissioners raised questions about the property’s designation and the implications of its address, which still reflects its previous two-unit configuration. The legal team clarified that while the property was once two units, the merger was legally sanctioned at the time, and the address issue does not negate the legal standing of the merger.

In conclusion, the meeting highlighted the complexities of property regulations in San Francisco, particularly regarding unit mergers. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar disputes in the future, as the city navigates its evolving planning codes and the implications for existing properties. The next steps will likely involve further legal discussions to resolve the status of the property and its compliance with current regulations.