Commission upholds DBI director's permit‑extension decision in unanimous vote on 770 Powell Street appeal

The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on Oct. 17 voted unanimously to uphold Department of Building Inspection Director Isam Hasson's decision to permit an extension for the site permit for 770 Powell Street (permit application 200105239812), denying an appeal that argued the permit had expired for failure to begin work.

Ed Sweeney of DBI presented the permit history: a site permit issued in November 2004 for a proposed seven‑story residential project with a valuation in the $7.1 million range and permit fees totaling about $551,000; DBI staff described multiple addenda and repeated contacts with the permit holder and explained the department had sent notice and worked with the applicant while additional addenda were under review.

Appellant counsel Joe Alieto Veronese argued the permit expired as a matter of law because no construction had begun by the statutory deadline and that the director's letter acknowledged the permit was past the start date. Veronese asked the commission to expire the permit.

Counsel for the permit holder and DBI staff countered that the building code provides the director with broad discretion to establish alternate procedures and extensions when applicants are actively working with the department and when city processes have contributed to delays. City counsel warned courts defer to discretionary administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or capricious. Director Hasson told the commission that DBI had been in active contact with the permit holder, that addenda such as excavation and shoring were under review or approved, and that the department itself bore some responsibility for earlier delays and staffing transitions.

Commission deliberations focused on whether the director's exercise of discretion was rational and supported by evidence of ongoing activity and city‑caused delay. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to set a precedent that allowed indefinite extensions without review, but most found the facts supported the director's decision in this case.

Commissioner Romero moved to support the director's decision (motion offered and seconded); a roll‑call vote recorded six yes votes and the commission denied the appeal. The commission directed city counsel to prepare written findings to be presented to the appellant at the next meeting.

Vote record (as recorded in the hearing): President Walker — Yes; Commissioner Grove — Yes; Commissioner Murphy — Yes; Commissioner Romero — Yes; Commissioner Satori — Yes; Commissioner Theriault — Yes.

Next step: city counsel will prepare written findings explaining the commission's reasoning and the administrative record for distribution to the parties.