Board of Appeals Upholds DBI permit for retroactive siding work at 870 North Point Street

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied an appeal by Ali Shafi, representing the homeowners association for 870 North Point Street, and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit that retroactively legalized the replacement of vinyl siding. The board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal.

The appeal (No. 25‑010) challenged permit application 202502069786 and a notice of violation, No. 202317515, issued for unpermitted replacement of exterior siding. Ali Shafi told the board the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) had known of problems at the property for more than a year but had not inspected the site and had underreported the project value to the city. “If they knew about it over a year ago…they issued the permit in 1 day without doing their due diligence,” Shafi said during oral argument.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the siding permit was not routed to Planning because DBI intake staff determined the work was “not visible from the street.” Teague said that even if a Planning review had occurred, the work—an in‑kind siding replacement on a non‑historic building—would have been approved over the counter. Joseph Ospital, the Department of Building Inspection speaker at the hearing, told commissioners the permit was issued to legalize unpermitted work and that the department’s records show the project was inspected and completed under DBI procedures.

Board members and staff discussed practical effects of revoking a retroactive permit. Commissioners were told that, if the board overturned the permit, the siding authorized by that permit would need to be removed and the property returned to its prior condition unless a new permit were obtained; the cost and logistics would fall to the property owners. Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal and uphold DBI’s action; the motion carried 5–0.

The board’s decision upheld the narrow administrative question before it—whether the permit had been properly issued and processed—not other enforcement matters raised by the appellants. Planning and DBI staff noted that operational or safety issues not resolved by the siding permit (for example, alleged roof or window defects) remain subject to separate enforcement or permitting channels. Shafi asked the board to refer broader concerns to the city attorney’s office; President John Trezvina and DBI staff pointed him to the deputy city attorney for formal follow‑up and advised that the homeowners association can also pursue new permits to do additional repairs or improvements.

The appeal record and pleadings list the permit and the DBI notice of violation as the controlling administrative documents. The board’s written order will be entered in the appeals record.