Board upholds Planning and Building actions in 1049 Market Street appeals, rejects owner’s late‑jurisdiction claims

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 5 rejected three consolidated appeals by 1049 Market Street LLC challenging the Planning Department’s revocation request and a notice of violation that alleged the owner had converted residential units to unauthorized commercial use.

The decision came after hours of testimony from tenants and advocates who said long‑term residents were displaced as rooms and units were converted to commercial occupancy. Ryan Patterson, counsel for the permit holder, argued the city improperly pursued enforcement and raised takings concerns, citing a March 2017 appraisal that placed renovated value in the tens of millions. “The City has tried to come back and, in targeted actions against this property owner, has broken with both the basics of zoning law, state law, and principles of basic fairness,” Patterson said.

Planning Department Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the record shows repeated enforcement dating to 2007 and a 2013 permit issued over the counter without required Planning review. Sanchez said the department’s permanent controls, adopted after interim controls, require a conditional‑use authorization for removal of unauthorized dwelling units under Planning Code Section 3.17 and that the permit remained suspended. “We do believe the notice of violation is supported by substantial evidence in the record,” Sanchez said.

Department of Building Inspection senior staff told the board their review found errors in the 2013 permit application and approved plans: a misapplied AB17 reference, missing separate existing and proposed floor plans, and a front‑sheet note saying no physical construction was to be done despite demolition scope language. Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy said those plan problems could warrant revocation under the San Francisco building code.

Tenants and tenant advocates painted a different picture: dozens of speakers described an 80‑unit building with a mix of long‑term residents and newer commercial occupants, and urged the board to protect rent‑controlled housing. Karina Sisona, a tenant, said: “I personally have witnessed that our former homes of people who used to live in these places are now occupied … on at least First, Second, Third, And Sixth Floors.” Steve Collier of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic told the board fire‑safety rules differ from San Francisco’s natural‑light requirements and that sprinklers and two means of egress reduce the kind of hazard seen in the Ghost Ship fire.

The board considered procedural objections about late evidence but allowed department materials and gave the appellant limited rebuttal time. After deliberation the board—by recorded motion—found the Zoning Administrator did not abuse his discretion and that DBI’s reliance on the Planning Department request was appropriate. The board recorded the motion as carried.

Next steps: the parties retain their court remedies; the appellants have pending litigation raising facial challenges to the permanent controls and related preemption claims. Members of the public and tenant groups said they will continue to monitor enforcement and any appeals to the courts.