524-526 Vallejo Street — San Francisco

Property History

A Documented Timeline,
1906 to Present

Every significant event in the property's recorded history, cross-referenced from San Francisco DBI records, MLS listing data, and planning commission filings. Dates and facts are drawn from primary sources.

Dec 3, 1906

Building Permit

Original Building Permit Issued

Building permit #6321 issued December 3, 1906 — just months after the San Francisco earthquake. The property is established as a residential structure on Block 0132, Lot 009 in the North Beach neighborhood.

1907

Construction

Construction Completed — Two-Unit Building

The building is completed as a two-unit residential property, consistent with early City records.

1984

Unpermitted

Informal Units Added Without Permits

One to two informal, unpermitted units are added to the property. Only one has any historical proof of a tenant — evidenced by letters from two former tenants who both state a ‘fourth’ unit was unoccupied at the time of the property’s purchase. No permits authorizing their creation have ever been identified, and the City has no record of when or by whom they were built. These spaces were first formally recognized when the developer legalized them on paper as part of the 2013–2016 renovation permit.

"4 San Antonio Place" Does Not Exist in City Records

Interestingly, there is no evidence that the address “4 San Antonio Place” exists or has ever existed. It has never appeared in the City’s Enterprise Address System (its master registry of every valid address in San Francisco), the SF Property Information Map, property tax records, building permits, the Assessor-Recorder’s recorded documents, voter registration records, census records, or USPS address databases. The only San Antonio address the City recognizes on this parcel is “4A San Antonio Place,” which was not added to City records until circa 2013.

Zero building permits have ever been filed under any San Antonio address for this property — every permit in its history is under 524 or 526 Vallejo Street.

Per former tenant testimony filed with the Planning Commission, the 4A San Antonio unit — the only San Antonio address the City actually recognizes — was vacant at the time of the developer’s 2010 purchase and had no occupants. These are the “units” the City is now demanding be restored.

Oct 12, 2010

Sale

Developer Acquisition

Developer Peter Iskandar (SP Twin Boys Corporation / Master Builders) purchases the property on October 12, 2010 for $853,125. At the time of acquisition, the two legal units are occupied and one informal space has a tenant in place. All existing tenants are vacated through negotiated buyout agreements. All tenant matters are fully resolved by 2013 — eight years before the current owners' purchase. No tenants have occupied any of these spaces since 2013.

Feb 4, 2011

Permit

Major Renovation Permit Filed

Permit 201102049686 is filed February 4, 2011 for a comprehensive renovation including exterior alterations, vertical addition, and interior remodel. The permit undergoes a multi-year review by DBI and the Zoning Division.

2012

Key Record Gap in Record

DBI Affirms Building as "Legally a 2 Unit Building"

On April 19, 2012, permit 201204198732 is filed and issued the same day. Its description reads: "FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY TO CLARIFY RECORDS & TO RE-AFFIRM THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT BLCK #0132 & LOT #009 IS LEGALLY A 2 UNIT BUILDING ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED UNDER BUILDING PA# 6321 ISSUED 12/3/1906 BASED ON RECORDS PROVIDED BY RECORD MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF DBI." This determination came directly from DBI's Record Management Division — the department responsible for official building history.

Not in the Public Record

The permit was revoked on August 8, 2012. DBI's own system records the revocation as occurring "per DBI's letter" — but that letter has never been produced in any public proceeding, at the Planning Commission, or before the Board of Supervisors. No written explanation exists in the public record for why DBI reversed its own Record Management Division's formal finding.

Also in November 2012, the Zoning Division (CP-ZOC) approves the renovation permit with the notation: "approved exterior alterations including in-kind window replacement, new wood clapboard siding, vertical addition, and interior remodel with no change of unit count."

Jan 29, 2013

Permit Issued Unexplained Contradiction

Four-Unit Configuration Approved on Paper

Permit 201102049686 is formally issued January 29, 2013, approving plans for a four-unit configuration — two additional units legalized on paper. This approval exists in the permit record. Based on physical and structural evidence, the as-built condition diverged from these approved plans during the developer's renovation — most likely around this period, before DBI's 2016 sign-off. Whether a four-unit building was ever constructed is the central question in current proceedings.

Unexplained Contradiction

Just eight weeks earlier, in November 2012, the City's own Zoning Division approved the renovation permit with the explicit notation: "no change of unit count." No city record explains how the same building went from a Zoning-approved "no change of unit count" renovation to a DBI-approved four-unit building in under two months — without any new application or public hearing.

Jan 2014 – Jan 2016

Structural Inspections

City Inspects and Approves Foundational Construction

Over a two-year period, DBI inspects and signs off on the structural core of the building as it is constructed: the property retaining wall and concrete slab (Permit 201401277110, January 2014), revised structural sheathing (Permit 201406209539, July 2014), and additional structural and architectural details (Permit 201504214168, April 2015). On January 26, 2016, DBI completes its inspection confirming that all substantial construction — foundations, framing, and shear walls — is complete.

Why This Matters

These are the bones of the building. They define the layout, including elevator bank placement, stairwell locations and directors, load bearing walls, and all foundational elements. They cannot be meaningfully altered without new permits, new engineering, and new inspections.

May 9, 2016

Certificate Issued

DBI Issues Certificate of Final Completion

DBI Inspector Sean Birmingham issues the Certificate of Final Completion (CFC) on the master permit (201102049686) — the City’s official sign-off that all permitted construction is complete. The CFC certifies completion; it does not independently describe the as-built layout. However, the structural inspections that preceded it do: the foundation, framing, shear walls, and retaining walls that define this building’s architecture were already inspected and approved.

Jun 23, 2016

MLS Listing

Developer Lists Property as Single-Family Home — 45 Days After CFC

Beginning June 2016 — days after the CFC — developer Peter Iskandar lists the property for sale at $6,500,000 (MLS #447339) and separately for rent at $35,000/month as a single-family residence. The July 28, 2016 Realtor.com listing explicitly classifies the property type as "Single Family." The property is listed and marketed three separate times in 2016–2017, always as a single home.

May 5, 2017

Key Record

DBI Inspector Returns — Signs Off on Five Open Permits

Nearly one year after the Certificate of Final Completion, and ten months after the property was first publicly listed as a single-family home with floor plans showing one kitchen and no unit separations, DBI Inspector Sean Birmingham returns to 524 Vallejo Street and signs off on five remaining open permits in a single visit: the building-wide fire sprinkler system (201307222435), the property retaining wall and concrete slab (201401277110), revised beam details (201406269589), railing details (201504214168), and roof deck materials (201506017623).

City records show these were completed in sequence — the sprinkler sign-off at 8:44 AM, followed by four structural and architectural sign-offs at 3:27, 3:28, 3:29, and 3:30 PM.

What a Complete Inspection Required

Properly inspecting these items would require walking the entire building — from the garage-level foundation and sprinkler risers through every floor to the roof deck. Notably, the building’s elevator originates at the garage and terminates at the third floor. It does not reach the roof — not in the current building, and not in the approved plans on file with the City. Any inspection of the roof deck required passing through the building’s living spaces.

No violation or discrepancy was noted. No new permits were filed between the CFC and this inspection. The property was sold seven weeks later in an arm’s-length transaction to Roumana LLC.

2017–21

Occupancy

Continuous Single-Family Occupancy

The property is continuously occupied and used as a single-family home. No construction, subdivision, or reconfiguration into multiple units occurs. No enforcement actions are initiated. The property is listed and sold again in 2020–2021.

2019–22

City Context

DBI Corruption Scandal

Federal investigations result in four criminal convictions of DBI officials for bribery, fraud, and corruption. The misconduct spans the same 2011–2016 window as the 524 Vallejo renovation. A citywide audit reviews 5,445 properties tied to the implicated inspectors. The 524 Vallejo renovation — permitted, constructed, and certified entirely within this period — falls squarely in the corruption window. In 2025, the Board of Supervisors passes amnesty legislation for property owners who purchased homes in good faith during this era.

Apr 12, 2021

Sale

Current Owners Purchase Property

Katelin Holloway and Ben Ramirez purchase the property on April 12, 2021 for $4,858,490 (MLS #508471). The MLS listing, while classified as "Residential Income / Quadruplex" due to the 2013 paper designation, markets the home as "presently arranged as an expansive single-family home." All four listed "units" show 0 bedrooms, 0 bathrooms, 0 square footage, and $0 rent. The physical condition at purchase is identical to the 2016 as-built certification.

Jan 21, 2022

Planning Enforcement

Planning Department Opens Enforcement Case

The San Francisco Planning Department opens Enforcement Case No. 2022-000583ENF for “installation of a roof deck guardrail and decking materials without Planning Department review and approval, possible raising of entire existing roof, and possible dwelling unit merger (need to verify interior connections).” Planner Vincent Page II is assigned as staff contact. A site visit is conducted on March 7, 2022, during which Planning verifies the dwelling unit merger.

Status

This enforcement case remains active today and is the basis for the current CUA proceedings and Board of Supervisors appeal. The property owners have been actively and constructively engaged with Planning on this case since 2022.

Mar 3, 2022

DBI Complaint

Planning Refers Complaint to DBI — Closed Without Inspection

The Planning Department refers a complaint to DBI (Complaint #202288219), describing “work beyond scope of approved permit.” The complaint source is listed as “DCP REFERRAL.” DBI assigns the case to Inspector Duffy (ID 1100). On March 8, Duffy notes he “obtained plans for the project.” On April 27, 2022 — just 55 days later — Duffy closes the complaint as “ABATED: As per approved plans.” No DBI inspector enters the home. No site visit is conducted. The property owners, who have been living in the home since April 2021, are never contacted and have no knowledge this complaint exists.

Hidden for Four Years

Notably, the “Date Filed” field in the DBI record is blank — an anomaly in city complaint records. This complaint does not surface until March 2026, when the owners’ expeditor discovers it during preparation for a separate DBI inspection. The complaint was unknown to the owners and their entire team of experts for four years, despite active engagement with the City on the related Planning enforcement case during that same period.

Jul 25, 2022

Key Record

As-Built Drawings Confirm No Interior Changes Since 2016

Owners commission a comprehensive set of as-built drawings for 524–526 Vallejo Street. The completed drawings, delivered July 25, 2022, exactly match the floor plans published in the 2016 MLS listings — demonstrating that neither of the two ownership groups made any changes to the interior layout over six years of occupancy — a condition that remains unchanged today in 2026. The as-built condition is identical to what DBI’s Inspector Birmingham certified in the 2016 Certificate of Final Completion.

Why This Matters

The alignment between the 2016 MLS floor plans and the 2022 as-built drawings closes any remaining question about whether modifications were made post-CFC. The layout the City is now challenging is the same layout that has existed since the developer’s renovation was completed and certified.

2022–24

Planning

Good-Faith Investigation & CUA Application

After purchasing the property, the owners undertook a comprehensive good-faith review of the building’s history and regulatory status. They retained legal counsel, an architect, and a permitting expeditor to evaluate whether the four-unit configuration referenced in a 2013 permit could realistically be constructed within the existing structure.

That analysis determined that reinstating four separate units is physically infeasible within the building as it exists today. It was clear that the structure was never built as four units, and doing so now would require extensive demolition of load-bearing elements and major reconstruction.

Equally important, the project would have to comply with today’s Planning Code, not the assumptions underlying the 2013 permit. Modern requirements for light and air exposure, rear-yard access, unit livability, and life-safety make fitting four compliant dwelling units within the existing envelope extremely difficult without effectively rebuilding the structure.

The situation is further constrained by the approved 2013 permit drawings, which limit how much unit layouts can be modified. Under those approvals, unit sizes generally cannot change by more than 20 percent, significantly restricting the ability to redesign the interior to create viable units that meet modern code requirements.

Taken together, these constraints create a fundamental conflict: the City is asking the owners to recreate four units that were never physically constructed, while the regulatory framework governing the building today makes such a configuration not realistically achievable.

Nov 18, 2024

Planning

Planning Department Reverses Course on Unit Merger Path

After directing the homeowners in March 2022 to pursue four-unit reinstatement as the only remedy for the enforcement notice, the Planning Department notifies the family that it has revised its interpretation of SB 330 based on updated state guidance. Planner Vincent Page confirms that the Planning Commission may now review Conditional Use Authorization applications to legalize dwelling unit mergers — superseding the direction he provided two and a half years earlier. The family begins preparing a CUA application.

Dec 4, 2025

Planning Commission

Planning Commission Hearing — Procedural Denial

The San Francisco Planning Commission holds a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2025. After extensive evidence is presented regarding the as-built condition, architectural feasibility, and public benefit, the vote results in a 3–3 tie — constituting a procedural denial, not a merits-based determination.

Jan 5, 2026

Appeal

Board of Supervisors Appeal Filed

Owners appeal the Planning Commission denial to the Board of Supervisors (Files #260021 & #260022), with a hearing scheduled for April 7, 2026.

The appeal pursues the original, practical, housing-positive solution proposed to the Planning Commission, in which they request to legalize the building’s longstanding two-unit configuration, and add a new rent-controlled apartment. This proposal would increase the city’s true housing supply while respecting the building’s structural realities and complying with modern planning standards.

Mar 4, 2026

DBI Complaint

New DBI Complaint Filed — "Unlawful Removal of Three Dwelling Units"

A new DBI complaint (202652191) is filed alleging “unlawful removal of three dwelling units.” This is the first complaint to use this specific framing. Notably, the previously unknown 2022 DBI complaint (#202288219) — which was closed as “abated” without inspection — surfaces during preparation for this case.

Mar 11, 2026

Key Record

First Interior DBI Inspection Since 2017

DBI conducts the first interior inspection of the property since Inspector Birmingham’s 2017 visit — nine years after the CFC and nearly five years after the current owners’ purchase. This is the first time any DBI inspector has entered the home during the current owners’ occupancy.

Apr 7, 2026

Active

Board of Supervisors Hearing

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear the appeal of the Planning Commission’s procedural denial. Proceedings are ongoing.

The contested four-unit designation existed for 3 years on paper during an extensive renovation. This building in reality has been a single-family home for at least 10 years.

The Planning Record

The Central Question:
Two Units or Four?

The City of San Francisco and the current owners have reached different conclusions about the property's legal unit count. The City's active complaint (202652191) alleges "unlawful removal of three dwelling units." The owners contend that no four-unit building was ever constructed and that the building has been certified, sold, and occupied as a single-family home since 2016. Below are the primary pieces of documentary evidence on the public record. Readers are invited to review and form their own interpretations.

Days Since Any Tenant Occupied the "Units"

Since December 31, 2012 — the last possible date any tenant occupied the informal spaces the City now demands be restored.

Days This Family Has Been in Process with the City

Since January 21, 2022 — when the Planning Department opened Enforcement Case No. 2022-000583ENF.

What the Record Actually Shows

San Francisco's own permit documents contain a chain of direct contradictions — issued by the City's own departments, never reconciled, and never explained. In plain terms:

In April 2012, DBI's Record Management Division formally declared this building "legally a 2 unit building." That determination was reversed four months later by a letter that has never been made public. In November 2012, the City's Zoning Division approved the renovation permit with an explicit notation: "no change of unit count." Eight weeks later, with no new application and no public hearing, DBI issued a permit for a four-unit building at the same address. In 2016, DBI's own inspector completed 21 field inspections. The City then issued a Certificate of Final Completion — its official sign-off that construction was complete and compliant.

The City's current enforcement position — that a four-unit building exists and was unlawfully removed — is directly contradicted by the City's own records at every stage of this property's history. It is also built on a foundation that was never legally established: the 2013 permit that created the four-unit designation was issued without the public hearing, Conditional Use Authorization, or neighborhood notification that San Francisco Planning Code requires for changes to a building's unit count. The designation the City is enforcing today was never subjected to the public process the City now demands of the owners to resolve it. The evidence below documents each of these contradictions in full.

Documented Contradictions in the City's Own Record

Contradiction 01

Zoning Division vs. DBI — Eight Weeks Apart, Same Property

The City's own departments issued directly conflicting approvals on the same renovation at the same address within eight weeks of each other — with no new application filed, no public hearing held, and no written explanation for the conflict.

Zoning Division — Nov. 28, 2012 Approved renovation permit with notation: "no change of unit count" — explicitly confirming the unit count would remain unchanged.

DBI — Jan. 29, 2013 Issued permit 201102049686 approving a four-unit configuration for the same property — with no new application and no explanation of the conflict with the Zoning Division's notation eight weeks prior.

No city record explains how the same renovation went from "no change of unit count" to a four-unit approval in under two months.

Contradiction 02

"4 San Antonio Place" — An Address That Has Never Existed

The City's enforcement action demands the restoration of a fourth unit described as "4 San Antonio Place." There is one problem: that address does not exist — not in the City's own master address registry, not in any permit record, not in property tax rolls, not in voter registration files, and not in any census or postal database. The City is demanding the reconstruction of a unit for which there is no evidence it ever existed as a legal, occupied dwelling.

What the City's Enforcement Claims A fourth dwelling unit — "4 San Antonio Place" — was unlawfully removed and must be restored to bring the property into compliance.

What Every City Database Shows "4 San Antonio Place" does not appear in the Enterprise Address System (SF's master address registry), the SF Property Information Map, property tax records, any building permit in the property's history, voter registration records, census records, or USPS address databases. Every permit ever filed for this property — without exception — is under 524 or 526 Vallejo Street.

The only San Antonio address the City itself formally recognizes for this property is 4A San Antonio Place — and per former tenant testimony filed with the Planning Commission, that unit was vacant at the time of the developer's 2010 purchase and had no occupants. There is no documentation — no lease, no utility account, no voter registration, no census record, no permit — that places a living tenant at any "4 San Antonio" address at any point in this building's history. The City has not produced any such evidence. It has only asserted that the unit existed.

Contradiction 03

The 2022 "Verification" — An Inspection the Owners Never Knew Happened

The City's entire enforcement case rests on a March 7, 2022 site visit in which Planning Department planner Vincent Page II declared he had "verified the dwelling unit merger." The owners had been living in the home as a single-family residence since April 2021 — nearly a full year. They were never notified of the visit, never contacted for access, and had no knowledge it occurred. A separate DBI complaint filed the same week was closed 55 days later without a single inspector ever entering the building.

City's Notice of Enforcement — March 9, 2022 Planning Dept. planner Vincent Page II states: site visit on March 7, 2022 "confirmed cooking facilities of units 524 Vallejo Street, 4 San Antonio Place, and 4A San Antonio Place were removed, and internal connections were established between all four units."

What Was Actually True on March 7, 2022 The owners had been living in the home for 11 months. They were never contacted, never given notice of any site visit, and have no record of authorizing entry. DBI's own parallel complaint (No. 202288219, Inspector Duffy) was closed April 27 as "Abated: As per approved plans" — with no interior inspection conducted and a blank "Date Filed" field, an anomaly in city records. That complaint remained unknown to the owners and their entire team of experts for four years.

The "verification" that anchors the City's enforcement action was made without contacting the people living inside the home, without a DBI interior inspection, and without reconciling the finding against DBI's own 2016 Certificate of Final Completion — which certified the identical layout as a compliant single-family residence six years earlier. The City has never explained how a layout DBI certified as compliant in 2016 became an illegal merger by 2022 with no construction in between.

Contradiction 04

The City's Own Code Permits Exactly What It Is Now Calling a Violation

The SF Planning Department's own published interpretation of the Planning Code — the same document the City relies on to define dwelling units — expressly states that when a single family occupies an entire multi-unit building, interior walls separating units may be removed, and the resulting layout is consistent with lawful single-family use. The City is now treating that layout as an unlawful merger requiring full restoration.

City's Current Enforcement Position Removing interior walls and establishing internal connections between units constitutes an unlawful residential merger under Planning Code Section 317, requiring restoration of all removed dwelling units.

City's Own Planning Code Interpretation — October 1996 Office of the Zoning Administrator: "If a single family occupies the entire building, the removal of walls between units is permitted as part of a single-family use." 524–526 Vallejo has been continuously owner-occupied as a single-family home since the 2016 CFC — by the developer, then Roumana LLC, then the current owners.

The City is enforcing Section 317 against a configuration that its own Zoning Administrator's published guidance explicitly contemplates as lawful. It has not explained why the 1996 interpretation does not apply here, nor has it produced any superseding guidance that would override it.

Contradiction 05

The Four-Unit Designation Was Created Without the Public Process the City Now Demands of the Owners

Under San Francisco Planning Code, increasing the number of dwelling units in a residential building is a discretionary action — one that requires a Conditional Use Authorization, Planning Commission approval, public notice under Section 333, and neighborhood notification under Section 311. The current owners have been required to satisfy every one of these requirements. The 2013 permit that created the four-unit designation satisfied none of them.

What the 2013 Four-Unit Permit Went Through No Conditional Use Authorization. No Planning Commission hearing. No Section 311 neighborhood notification. No Section 333 public notice posted at the property. No public comment period. The permit was processed as if it were ministerial — issued administratively, without discretionary review of any kind.

What the Current Owners Have Been Required to Do Full CUA application. Planning Commission hearing (December 2025). Board of Supervisors appeal hearing (April 7, 2026). Active DBI complaint investigation. Multiple rounds of public comment. The owners have appeared before more political bodies to resolve this property's history than the developer ever did to create it.

The City is holding the current owners to a rigorous public process to address a unit designation that was itself never subjected to any public process. If the 2013 permit was processed without the discretionary review that SF Planning Code requires for unit additions, the four-unit designation it created may never have been legally established. The City has not addressed this procedural question. It has simply assumed the designation is valid and proceeded to enforce it.

From CFC to Final Inspection — What Happened in 362 Days

May 9, 2016 — Day 0

DBI issues the Certificate of Final Completion on the master permit.

Jun 23, 2016 — Day 45

Developer lists property for sale at $6.5M as a single-family home. Floor plans show one kitchen, unified elevator, open staircase, no unit separations.

Jul 28, 2016 — Day 80

Property listed for rent at $35,000/month on Realtor.com. Classified as “Single Family.”

Apr 28, 2017 — Day 354

Third MLS listing. Floor plans again show single continuous home. Individual “unit” addresses show 0 bed / 0 bath / 0 sqft.

May 5, 2017 — Day 362

Inspector Birmingham returns, signs off on five open permits in a single visit. The property has been publicly marketed as a single-family home for eleven months. No discrepancy noted.

Key fact: The foundational structural elements — elevator shaft location, load-bearing walls, stairwell configuration, plumbing — could not have been modified between the CFC and Birmingham’s visit without a separate permit and significant construction. No such permit exists.

Zoning Division Approval: "No Change of Unit Count"

When the Zoning Division (CP-ZOC) reviewed and approved the renovation permit on November 28, 2012, it added a critical notation:

"approved exterior alterations including in-kind window replacement, new wood clapboard siding, vertical addition, and interior remodel with no change of unit count, MPL."

This notation — from the City's own Zoning Division — was made contemporaneously with the renovation approval. Its relationship to the 2013 four-unit plan approval is a subject of the current dispute.

MLS Data: All Four "Units" Show Zero Occupancy

The property was listed and sold four separate times between 2016 and 2021, always marketed as a single-family home. The 2021 MLS listing (RESFAR #508471), while classified as "Residential Income / Quadruplex," contains revealing unit-level data:

All 4 listed "units": 0 Bedrooms · 0 Bathrooms · 0 Sq. Ft. · $0 Rent · Status: Vacant

A July 2016 rental listing classifies the property as "Single Family" and offers the entire building for $35,000/month as one unit — not four separate rentals.

2022 Identical Complaint Closed as "Abated"

In March 2022, an identical DCP Referral complaint was filed alleging "work beyond scope of approved permit." DBI assigned Inspector Duffy (ID: 1100) to investigate. After reviewing the permit file and approved plans, Duffy closed the case on April 27, 2022:

"ABATED — As per approved plans"

No interior inspection was required to reach this determination. The current 2026 complaint (202652191) is substantively identical. The building has not been modified between 2022 and 2026.

DBI's Own 2012 Affirmation: "Legally a 2 Unit Building"

In April 2012 — while the renovation was underway — DBI's own Record Management Division issued permit 201204198732 specifically to clarify the property's legal status. The permit states:

"…TO RE-AFFIRM THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT BLCK #0132 & LOT #009 IS LEGALLY A 2 UNIT BUILDING ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED UNDER BUILDING PA# 6321 ISSUED 12/3/1906"

The permit was revoked on August 8, 2012. DBI's own records note the revocation occurred "per DBI's letter" — but that letter has never been produced or made publicly available. No written explanation for why DBI reversed its own Record Management Division's finding has been disclosed. Just four months later, the Zoning Division approved a renovation permit for the same property with the notation "no change of unit count," further complicating the record.

Missing from the Record What the City Has Not Explained

Not in the Public Record

The Letter That Revoked DBI's Own Finding

DBI's Record Management Division formally affirmed this building was "legally a 2 unit building" on April 19, 2012. The permit was revoked 111 days later. The city's own database records the revocation as occurring "per DBI's letter." That letter has never been produced — not in enforcement proceedings, not at the Planning Commission, and not before the Board of Supervisors. No written rationale for why DBI reversed its own determination has ever been made public.

Permit 201204198732 · Revoked August 8, 2012 · Stated reason: "per DBI's letter"

Unexplained Contradiction

Two Conflicting City Approvals, Eight Weeks Apart

On November 28, 2012, the City's Zoning Division approved the renovation with the explicit notation: "no change of unit count." On January 29, 2013 — just eight weeks later — DBI issued a permit for a four-unit building at the same address. The same city. The same property. Two approvals that directly contradict each other. No record explains the discrepancy, no public hearing occurred between them, and no new application was filed.

CP-ZOC review by Pilar Lavalley, 11/28/12 · vs. Permit 201102049686, 1/29/13

No Verification on Record

Four Units on Paper. No Evidence They Were Ever Built.

The City's entire enforcement position rests on a single 2013 permit and a set of architectural plans submitted by developer Peter Iskandar to the Planning Department. That is the only record that says four units exist. No DBI inspector has ever entered this building and documented — with photographs, measurements, or field notes — that four separate, habitable dwelling units were physically constructed. Every post-2013 inspection relied exclusively on paper records. The plans Iskandar submitted to the Planning Department were either never built as drawn or were not an accurate representation of what was constructed. All tenant testimony on record predates 2013. No one has testified to living in a four-unit configuration at this address after that date. The City has not produced a single photograph, floor measurement, or post-construction inspection report confirming that four dwelling units exist or have ever existed at 524–526 Vallejo Street.

CFC issued by Inspector Sean Birmingham, 5/9/16 · All DBI inspections paper-based · No post-construction photographic or physical evidence of four units on record

No Public Process on Record

The Designation Was Never Publicly Noticed, Heard, or Approved

Adding dwelling units in San Francisco requires a Conditional Use Authorization with Planning Commission approval, Section 311 neighborhood notification, and Section 333 public notice posted at the property. None of these steps occurred before the January 2013 permit that designated this building as four units. No CUA was filed. No hearing was held. No neighbors were notified. No notice was posted. The permit was issued administratively — without the discretionary review the Planning Code requires for changes to a building's residential unit count.

By contrast, the current owners have appeared before the Planning Commission, appealed to the Board of Supervisors, responded to an active DBI investigation, and submitted to multiple rounds of public comment — all to address a designation that was created without any public process at all. The asymmetry is direct: the City required nothing of the party who created the problem, and everything of the party who inherited it.

SF Planning Code §§ 303, 311, 317, 333 · No CUA on record for 201102049686 · No Section 311 notice found · No public hearing held prior to January 2013 unit change

For Public Consideration

Questions This Record Raises

The documents and records above raise a number of questions that the Board of Supervisors, city agencies, and the public may consider. We present them here without advocacy:

On Proportionality

The owners are not asking the City to take the full hit for this property's tangled history. They are asking for proportional accountability.

They bought the home in good faith, in the condition it had been certified, marketed, sold, and occupied in for years. They are prepared to spend millions of dollars, undergo major construction, and temporarily relocate their family in order to restore one real unit and add real housing to the neighborhood.

What they are asking the City to recognize is that this dispute did not begin with them. It arose from years of contradictory records, shifting approvals, and unresolved enforcement questions that long predate their ownership.

Forcing the owners to recreate three additional units that were never proven to exist beyond paperwork would not be a fair remedy. It would impose the entire cost of a decade-old problem on one family — likely displacing them permanently from their home.

The CUA is the middle path: a practical compromise that adds actual housing, respects the building's physical realities, and shares responsibility more fairly.

On Developer Accountability

The four-unit designation stems from a 2013 permit obtained by the developer. But there is hard evidence that the building that was ultimately constructed, inspected, and certified by the City in 2016 — and later sold in multiple transactions — was a single, unified residence.

In other words, the developer secured approval for one configuration, built another, and received final sign-off from the City before selling the property as a single-family home.

Subsequent buyers — including the current owners — were not parties to those decisions. They relied on City-issued approvals, recorded documents, and the building's actual condition at the time of purchase.

The question is how responsibility should be assigned in that context.

Should one family, years later, bear the full cost of reconciling a discrepancy created by prior construction decisions and City approvals? Or should accountability be more evenly distributed, reflecting both the developer's actions and the City's role in certifying and allowing that condition to stand?

On Tenant Displacement & Real Housing

No tenants have occupied the legal or informal units at this property since 2013, when all prior tenant matters were resolved. The additional "units" the City now seeks to restore have not existed physically — or housed anyone — for over a decade.

The owners' proposal would add a new rent-controlled apartment without displacing any current or recent tenants.

The City's proposed alternative does the opposite.

Requiring reconstruction of three additional units would not return prior residents. It would instead require the displacement of the current occupants — a family of four — and prevent them from returning to their home.

At the time of the developer's purchase, approximately five individuals lived in the building across multiple spaces. Today, the property supports a family of comparable size, with plans to house an aging parent in the near future.

The question is not whether displacement matters. It does. The question is where it is actually occurring. In this case, the only real and immediate displacement at issue is the displacement that would be caused by the City's proposed remedy.

On City Accountability

San Francisco is actively working to improve its permitting and planning systems — including reforms at DBI and the Planning Department aimed at reducing inconsistencies, restoring trust, and prioritizing practical, common-sense outcomes.

City leadership has also made clear that retaining families — and encouraging family-sized housing — is a priority, particularly in neighborhoods like North Beach where such housing is scarce.

This case reflects the kind of historical complexity those reforms are meant to address: conflicting records, shifting interpretations, and a gap between what was approved on paper and what was actually built and lived in.

The owners' proposal aligns with the City's stated goals. It resolves a long-standing inconsistency, adds a new rent-controlled unit, and preserves a rare family-sized home.

Approving the CUA is not an exception — it is a practical, housing-positive application of the City's current direction.

Current Status

Board of Supervisors Vote — April 7, 2026

On April 7, 2026, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on our appeal of the Planning Commission's de facto denial of our Conditional Use Authorization (Case No. 2024-011561CUA). The Board voted to deny our proposal. Below is a full account of the vote, the speakers, and what the record reflects about how that decision was made.

File No. 260022 · Motion to Deny CUA

APPROVED 10–0

Denying Conditional Use Authorization

Motion approving the Planning Commission's de facto denial of CUA Case No. 2024-011561CUA. Moved by Supervisor Sauter, seconded by Supervisor Sherrill. All ten supervisors present voted in favor. Supervisor Fielder was excused.

File No. 260023 · Motion to Approve CUA

TABLED 10–0

Approving the Conditional Use Authorization

The motion to approve our proposal — which would have required 8 votes under Charter Section 4.105 — was tabled without a substantive vote. No supervisor moved to bring it forward for consideration on the merits.

File No. 260024 · Findings Motion

FAILED 5–5

Preparation of Findings — Board Deadlocked

The motion to prepare written findings explaining the Board's denial failed on a tied vote. Ayes: Dorsey, Mahmood, Sauter, Sherrill, Wong. Noes: Chan, Chen, Mandelman, Melgar, Walton. No findings were adopted.

Why the failed findings matter: Under California law, a quasi-judicial body's decision must be supported by written findings that connect its conclusion to the evidence in the record. The Board voted 10–0 to deny our CUA, then failed 5–5 to produce any written rationale for that denial. Half the Board couldn't agree on the legal basis for a decision all ten of them just made. That is a significant procedural gap in the record.

A Politically Driven Decision

The public record of this hearing reflects a decision shaped more by political alignment than by the evidence before the Board. The opposition was organized and led primarily by tenant advocacy organizations — most notably Sarah "Fred" Sherburn-Zimmer of the Housing Rights Committee — despite the fact that no tenant has occupied any part of this property since December 2012, over thirteen years ago. The Housing Rights Committee is a well-known political force in San Francisco land use proceedings. Their presence here had no connection to any actual tenant being displaced.

The Board's approach to zoning law was equally telling. Our property sits in an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) zoning district. The existing four-unit designation originates from a 2013 permit that was approved without a required public hearing, without a Conditional Use Authorization, and without the neighborhood notification that the Planning Code mandates for changes to unit count. The Board made no effort to engage with this foundational legal defect. Instead, supervisors accepted the Planning Department's position at face value — a position the department has never reconciled with its own prior determinations, its own zoning notation of "no change of unit count," and its own 2016 Certificate of Final Completion certifying the building as it exists.

The failed findings motion further illuminates the political nature of the vote. The language proposed in that motion did not articulate a Planning Code basis for denial — it expressed a policy preference, suggesting that "a three-unit project may be desirable at the project site, if feasible and properly-designed." That is not a zoning finding. It is a political suggestion. And half the Board refused to adopt even that.

Spoke in Support of Our Appeal

5 speakers in support

Spoke Against Our Appeal

Sarah "Fred" Sherburn-Zimmer · Housing Rights Committee
Stephen Torres
Magick Altman
Theresa Flandrick
Lance Carnes
Jerry Dratler
Georgia Schuttish
Jeantelle Laberinto
Peter Stevens
Meg Heisler
Mitchell Olmerberg
Romalyn Schmaltz
Gen Fujioka

Not one of the speakers in opposition had any direct connection to this property — no current or former tenancy, no ownership history, no documented stake in how the building is configured. The opposition was entirely organized around a political position on housing ideology, not on the factual record of 524–526 Vallejo Street.

What the Board Refused to Engage With

The Board's denial came without any substantive engagement with the following documented facts, all of which are part of the official record:

The 4-unit designation was never legally established. The 2013 permit approving a four-unit configuration was issued without a public hearing, without a Conditional Use Authorization, and eight weeks after the City's own Zoning Division approved the renovation with an explicit notation of "no change of unit count." The Planning Code requires public process for changes to unit count in RM-1 zones. None occurred.

The City's own inspector certified the building as it exists. In 2016, DBI Inspector Sean Birmingham completed 21 field inspections — walking the entire building — and issued a Certificate of Final Completion. That certificate is the City's official sign-off that construction was complete and compliant. The Board was asked to compel reconstruction of units that the City itself certified as complete in their current form.

No tenant has lived here in over 13 years. The informal spaces the City now characterizes as "dwelling units" have had no occupant since December 2012. The Board's refusal to acknowledge this fact allowed advocacy organizations to frame this as a tenant protection issue when no tenants exist to protect.

The Planning Commission's own denial was procedural, not merits-based. The December 2025 Planning Commission vote resulted in a 3–3 tie — a procedural denial, not a determination on the evidence. The Board treated a deadlocked commission vote as though it were a substantive rejection of our proposal.

What Comes Next

We are not done. This fight is not over, and we are actively exploring every available path to protect our home and correct a record that the City's own documents contradict at every turn. We will update this page as the matter develops.

If you have signed the petition, thank you. Your support is part of the public record and has been seen by the Board.

↗ File 260021 — Hearing Record ↗ File 260022 — Denial Motion ↗ Meeting Video — Jump to Our Hearing (1:18:50) ↗ Official Board Minutes

North Beach by the Numbers

The Neighborhood Context

Public data from the U.S. Census Bureau, SF Planning Department, SF Controller's Office, and federal court records. Drawn together to provide an honest picture of who lives in North Beach, what housing actually looks like here, and where the real threats to the neighborhood's housing stock originate.

15,290

Total housing units
ZIP 94133 · 2020 Census

83.5%

Renter-occupied
Only 16.5% owner-occupied

10.1%

Households with children
Just 1,229 of 12,653 households

46.6%

Live alone
Avg. household size: 1.87

Where Families With Children Live

San Francisco · % of households with children under 18 · Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101

Housing Occupancy Breakdown

Renter-occupied

83.5%

Owner-occupied

16.5%

Single-person HH

46.6%

HH with children

10.1%

Seniors 65+

19.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates · ZCTA5 94133

The Disappearing San Francisco Family

San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any major U.S. city. That share has declined in every census since 1960. The pandemic accelerated a crisis that was already decades in the making.

−65,000

residents lost
2020–2022

7.5%

population drop
#1 among large U.S. counties

−$8B

federal tax base lost
in one year (IRS data)

13%

of SF population
is under 18 (lowest major city)

Why Families Leave

The cost of raising a family in San Francisco has become prohibitive for all but the wealthiest households. Median home prices exceed $1.3 million. Families who leave earn, on average, $105,000 more than those moving in — a brain drain of the city's most productive residents.

City bureaucracy compounds the problem. Permitting delays, enforcement inconsistencies, and a planning process that can take years to resolve even straightforward housing questions discourage families from investing in the city's housing stock — the very stock the city claims to want to preserve.

Where They Go

USPS change-of-address data shows nearly 80,000 households left San Francisco between March and November 2020 alone. Many stayed in the Bay Area — 28,000 moved to other Bay Area counties — but thousands relocated to cities like Austin, Denver, Dallas, Phoenix, and Sacramento.

The exodus was driven by remote work, housing costs, and a growing sense that the city's institutions were failing residents. SFUSD has lost over 3,500 students since 2015. In 2024, 13 schools were slated for closure. The children San Francisco says it wants to house are the same children it is failing to retain.

Against this backdrop, the City is demanding that one family on Vallejo Street reconstruct four units that never physically existed — while thousands of actual families leave every year and the city's own schools sit half-empty.

Sources: CBS News · KQED · KTVU / USPS Data · EIG / IRS Tax Data · ACS 2023

−3,500

students lost

SFUSD District-Wide Enrollment Collapse

San Francisco public schools have lost over 3,500 students since 2015 — from 53,000 to ~49,500. SFUSD projects losing another 5,000 by 2032. In 2024, 13 schools were listed for closure or merger. North Beach schools are among the most acutely affected.

Source: SFist 2024 · KRON4 · EdSource · SF Examiner

North Beach Neighborhood Schools — Current Enrollment

Francisco Middle School Grades 6–8 · Francisco & Powell St

511 ↓ 8% in 5 yrs

Elementary Schools

Redding Elementary TK–5 · Lower Nob Hill

246

Yick Wo Alternative Elementary TK–5 · North Beach / Russian Hill / Chinatown

216 — listed for closure 2025

Garfield Elementary TK–5 · 420 Filbert St · Cantonese Immersion

176

Spring Valley Elementary TK–5 · Nob Hill / Chinatown · Capacity: 418

214 — 51% capacity · listed for closure 2025

Jean Parker Elementary TK–5 · 840 Broadway · Title I

128 — 85%+ economically disadvantaged

Sources: SFUSD · Ed-Data · NCES · PublicSchoolReview 2024–25 · KALW 2024 school closure list

Households with Children

10.1%

Just 1,229 of 12,653 total households in 94133

Fewer than 1 in 10 households in North Beach contains a child. The average household size is 1.87 people. The neighborhood has never been a family enclave — and the trend is accelerating downward.

Source: ACS 2024 5-Year Estimates · S1101

Schools Facing Closure — SF 2024–25

SFUSD schools listed for merger or closure

North Beach schools are among the most affected. Two schools serving the neighborhood — Yick Wo and Spring Valley — were on the 2024 closure list. The district cannot fill the seats it already has.

Source: KALW October 2024 · BNN Bloomberg

Projected Student Loss by 2032

−5,000

SFUSD's own enrollment projections

San Francisco's public school system projects losing another 5,000 students over the next seven years due to declining birth rates, high housing costs, and families choosing to leave the city entirely.

Source: EdSource 2024 · SF Examiner

Housing Opportunities Proposed — and Killed — in North Beach

A local neighborhood group has systematically blocked housing development in the area for decades. Below are documented examples from recent years. Each blocked project represents dozens to hundreds of units that were never built.

132

955 Sansome St — Telegraph Hill

Residential tower proposed 2022. Neighbors (Waterfront Action Committee) appealed. Despite developer obtaining approval under HOME-SF, neighborhood groups fought the project for years. Now 24 stories / 132 units — state law (SB 330) ultimately forced the city's hand after local opposition failed to kill it outright.

Source: The Real Deal 2022 · The Frisc 2024

Contested

Verdi Building — 659 Union St

A century-old building burned in 2013 and again in 2018. Developer Jeff Jurow has been attempting redevelopment for over 8 years. Stalled repeatedly by historic preservation efforts and neighborhood opposition. As of 2025 it remains a burned shell.

Source: SF Standard 2024 · SF Standard October 2025

8+ Yrs Blocked

100s

North Beach Historic District Nomination

A 269-page historic context statement adopted in 2022 laid groundwork for a historic district designation that would effectively freeze new housing construction across the entire neighborhood. Mayor Lurie requested delay. Status unresolved 2025. If approved, it would be the most sweeping housing blockade in the city's recent history.

Source: KQED 2024 · The Nation

Pending

Multi

Washington St Towers · Piers 27–31 Mixed-Use · Filbert Steps 6-Story Building

Neighborhood groups have documented opposition to residential towers proposed for Washington Street, a mixed-use development at Piers 27–31, a Rite Aid, and a six-story building near the Filbert Street steps — among others.

Source: The Real Deal 2022

Killed

The Proportionality Question

Informal studio units at 524 Vallejo — never built to code, unoccupied since 2013, disputed in the current proceeding

vs.

150+

Real housing units blocked, delayed, or killed by neighborhood opposition in North Beach over the last 15 years — including 132 units at 955 Sansome alone

The City's Planning Department is pursuing displacement of a family of four to preserve two units that haven't been occupied in 15 years — while the same neighborhood groups who oppose this family's home have systematically killed every significant housing project proposed for the area.

Short-Term Rentals vs. Enforcement Priorities

“Units” the City is spending years of enforcement resources to “restore” — paper units that were never physically built and have had no occupants since 2013

vs.

8,300+

Active short-term vacation rental listings in San Francisco — actual housing units operating as tourist hotels, many in North Beach, one of the city’s highest-demand tourist neighborhoods

Sources: AirDNA (2025), Inside Airbnb. North Beach is disproportionately affected by vacation rental conversion due to its proximity to Fisherman’s Wharf, Coit Tower, and other tourist destinations. The City devotes years of enforcement to three paper units at 524 Vallejo while thousands of actual housing units are removed from the rental market nightly.

SF Department of Building Inspection — Public Record

Federal criminal convictions, a Controller's Office audit finding an "unacceptable pattern of misconduct," and an internal audit flagging 277 properties. All public record. All relevant context for understanding how building permit histories in San Francisco were generated during this period.

Tom Hui

DBI Director 2013–2020

Accepted improper gifts, meals, and personal favors from developers. Abused official position to help family members obtain city jobs. City Attorney investigation concluded likely violations of ethics law. Resigned before removal proceedings.

Resigned 2020

Bernie Curran

Senior Building Inspector

Accepted a $260,000 interest-free loan from a developer directly connected to his inspections — $30,000 never repaid. Sentenced to 1 year and 1 day federal prison (2023) plus 2 additional years state prison. Released May 2024.

Federal Prison · 2023

Rodolfo "Rudy" Pada

DBI Plan Checker

Accepted $40,000+ in bribes over 14 years (2003–2017). Concealed an $85,000 interest-free loan from engineering firm executives. Pleaded guilty December 2023. Sentenced to 12 months and 1 day federal prison + $10,000 fine.

Federal Prison · 2024

Cyril Yu

DBI Plan Reviewer / Engineer

Accepted bribes including cash and meals from engineering firm executives. Cooperated with federal authorities, including wearing a wire. Pleaded guilty March 2024. Sentenced to 12 months and 1 day federal prison + $20,000 fine.

Federal Prison · 2024

📋

2021 SF Controller's Office Audit — Found an "unacceptable pattern of misconduct" and systemic failures in DBI's permitting and inspection process. No system for monitoring red-flag approvals. Negative "tone at the top" during Hui's tenure enabled bribery and favoritism across the department. Mayor Breed issued executive directive requiring reforms.

Source: SF Controller’s Office, September 16, 2021

🏠

2025 Internal Audit — DBI audited 5,445 buildings associated with the implicated inspectors. Identified 277 properties requiring repairs for code compliance. 182 properties red-flagged; 177 resulted in open complaints. Board of Supervisors passed amnesty legislation for property owners who purchased in good faith.

Source: SF Controller’s Office Audit · DOJ Press Release

524–526Vallejo Street

A North Beach Home, Over a Century in the Making

As Built & As Sold

A Documented Timeline,1906 to Present

Original Building Permit Issued

Construction Completed — Two-Unit Building

Informal Units Added Without Permits

Developer Acquisition

Major Renovation Permit Filed

DBI Affirms Building as "Legally a 2 Unit Building"

Four-Unit Configuration Approved on Paper

City Inspects and Approves Foundational Construction

DBI Issues Certificate of Final Completion

Developer Lists Property as Single-Family Home — 45 Days After CFC

DBI Inspector Returns — Signs Off on Five Open Permits

Continuous Single-Family Occupancy

DBI Corruption Scandal

Current Owners Purchase Property

Planning Department Opens Enforcement Case

Planning Refers Complaint to DBI — Closed Without Inspection

As-Built Drawings Confirm No Interior Changes Since 2016

Good-Faith Investigation & CUA Application

Planning Department Reverses Course on Unit Merger Path

Planning Commission Hearing — Procedural Denial

Board of Supervisors Appeal Filed

New DBI Complaint Filed — "Unlawful Removal of Three Dwelling Units"

First Interior DBI Inspection Since 2017

Board of Supervisors Hearing

Two Units for 119 Years

The Central Question:Two Units or Four?

Zoning Division vs. DBI — Eight Weeks Apart, Same Property

"4 San Antonio Place" — An Address That Has Never Existed

The 2022 "Verification" — An Inspection the Owners Never Knew Happened

The City's Own Code Permits Exactly What It Is Now Calling a Violation

The Four-Unit Designation Was Created Without the Public Process the City Now Demands of the Owners

Zoning Division Approval: "No Change of Unit Count"

MLS Data: All Four "Units" Show Zero Occupancy

2022 Identical Complaint Closed as "Abated"

DBI's Own 2012 Affirmation: "Legally a 2 Unit Building"

The Letter That Revoked DBI's Own Finding

Two Conflicting City Approvals, Eight Weeks Apart

Four Units on Paper. No Evidence They Were Ever Built.

The Designation Was Never Publicly Noticed, Heard, or Approved

Questions This Record Raises

Public Record

SF Planning Code Interpretation — Unit Definition

Planning & Appeal Submission

Historical MLS Marketing Materials

Notice of Complaint (NOC) — February 2022

Notice of Enforcement (NOE) — March 2022

SF Planning Department — Case File

1935 Sanborn Map — Blocks 0001–0159

Architectural Analysis — Sutro & Associates

Recent Precedent: 1090 Randolph Street (June 2024)

Clarification of Factual Inaccuracies in Planning Department Response

Board of Supervisors Vote — April 7, 2026

CUA Denied — 10 to 0. Findings Not Adopted — 5 to 5.

Denying Conditional Use Authorization

Approving the Conditional Use Authorization

Preparation of Findings — Board Deadlocked

A Politically Driven Decision

Spoke in Support of Our Appeal

Spoke Against Our Appeal

What the Board Refused to Engage With

What Comes Next

What People Are Saying

The Neighborhood Context

Stand With 524 Vallejo

Where Our Supporters Live

Recent Signatures

Thank you for signing.

San Francisco Housing & Tenant Resources

524–526
Vallejo Street

A North Beach
Home, Over a Century
in the Making

A Documented Timeline,
1906 to Present

The Central Question:
Two Units or Four?