New report reveals Tesla showroom has been operating for 9 years without proper permitting
Another knock for the DBI
Tesla’s San Francisco showroom has been operating without a final building permit for nearly a decade due to a bureaucratic oversight.
Despite a $2.3 million renovation in 2016, the city’s Department of Building Inspection (DBI) never gave the final sign-off, meaning the showroom has technically been in violation of city regulations ever since.
Reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, DBI records show that inspectors visited the 999 Van Ness Avenue location multiple times in 2015 and 2016 as the showroom underwent extensive upgrades. However, there’s no record of a final inspection ever taking place, certainly not thrilling Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk.
DBI spokesperson Patrick Hannan called the lapse an “oversight” and confirmed that Tesla’s landlords have been issued a notice of violation, requiring them to renew the permit and undergo a final inspection. However, since the building remained an auto showroom, Hannan said it was legally occupiable, and public safety was not compromised. Tesla has yet to comment.
Advert
The revelation comes as DBI attempts to clean up its reputation following a 2020 federal corruption probe that led to resignations and prosecutions of department employees, builders, and permit expediters.
Records show that DBI inspectors confirmed the building’s plumbing, electrical, and heating systems were up to code in mid-2016.
Although, when an official attempted a final inspection that August, they were unable to complete it — and no follow-up was ever scheduled.
Under city codes, construction must be completed and inspected within three years, but no extension appears to have been requested. Last year, DBI flagged key permits for the project as “expired” and “timed out.”
The situation has reignited concerns over DBI’s outdated permit-tracking system, which critics say is riddled with inefficiencies. Supervisor Myrna Melgar criticized the agency’s antiquated processes, saying, “A lot of things go missing, get altered, or fall off the radar because no one is tracking them.”
She added: “The system they have built is not modern, it’s a system built on paper. What I’ve heard for decades is, ‘These are construction people, not very sophisticated, and can’t be expected to use computers.’ What that masks is a way to have a system that is accessible for just a few and to be opaque and controlled by DBI… It is high time we have a system that is open, transparent, and accessible to everybody. The fact that we don’t is really problematic.”
San Francisco previously spent millions attempting to modernize its permit-tracking system with a tool called Accela, but DBI never implemented it. Lee Ann Slinkard, a former Accela executive, stressed the importance of modernizing the process, stating: “You don’t really have legal permission to use those premises, without a final permit.”
DBI has acknowledged its outdated system and is “actively planning and scoping a replacement system,” according to Hannan. The effort is part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s PermitSF initiative, which aims to streamline San Francisco’s permitting process.
Adding to the controversy, Tesla’s renovations were overseen by contractor John Pollard, who has since been placed on the city’s Expanded Compliance Control program — a list of repeat building code violators. Pollard was flagged in December, leading DBI to review and expire permits linked to his projects, including Tesla’s.
The compliance program was created in response to the city’s corruption scandal, which saw former senior building inspector Bernie Curran and plan checkers Cyril Yu and Rudy Pada plead guilty to fraud charges. Initially, the program only listed one name, but following media scrutiny, DBI has begun adding more. That included Pollard, who is also under state investigation for alleged shoddy workmanship.
With mounting pressure on DBI to reform its flawed system, Tesla’s permit debacle could serve as another example of why San Francisco’s building oversight process needs urgent change.