[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6577604,"mediaKeyId","3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8","parentId",3113420,"title","Board of Appeals denies rehearing request in 3160 Jackson Street permit dispute","audioSeconds",1684,"startMs",412000,"endMs",2096000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8&start=412&end=2096","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8/thumbnail_412000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6577604/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-denies-rehearing-request-in-3160-Jackson-Street-permit-dispute","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6577604-962fa77b33eead7b1161b7c2f2d167a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092293&Signature=j1Ti1nVQwtzxkN3RT8FG-5wdcEH7K-aXDYWZEhg0krOySyXkoGtZoGSeUiCys6IV-PFFGboMfxeV~9qGTfvOy14HtwH~4ii0nS7okN0Swqo3NmmjYh3FD2DjkhD59LffDLEMI-AfW3Vly~u-SCgnOAHSW8rGBwIogArqkDGWVGPXweZMbQh6kSJy7xfTMXZlk7QwU90L5vabnBMxhAgKgemw-QJk1cp5o8hubA40kZxiqANoUl~M85JzdzNI7WZ8X1j5Yun6vuxEjpPIJY3IbMxmnRLNrWasFzNue4mvzeir-i0OKaDU7xR2BZcl4tlqmMhKURNNc21-wfPm-4vObQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-04-23T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 23 denied a rehearing request from Lana and John Adair concerning a site permit for 3160 Jackson Street, voting 3-0 that the appellants had not shown new or different material facts or a manifest injustice that would change the board’s earlier decision.

The Adairs told the board they filed the rehearing request after receiving shoring and structural calculations that they said had been withheld during the original appeal. \"We are requesting a rehearing in order to consider the information that was promised,\" John Adair said. He and a licensed engineer told the board they remain concerned about excavation and its proximity to an existing retaining wall.

Board members said the rehearing rules require either (1) an extraordinary case to prevent manifest injustice or (2) new, material facts that would have changed the original ruling. President Trezvino asked the appellants to explain how the newly produced calculations met that standard. The appellants said the materials were provided only after the permit was issued and that they had not had adequate time to process them before the deadline to request rehearing.

The permit holder, represented at the hearing by architect Steven Sutro, said the project advanced through discretionary review and that structural calculations had been provided to the appellants as soon as the sponsor had written confirmation of who would receive them. Sutro said the structural calculations are properly reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) during plan check. \"We wanted to give it to them immediately, but we expected this to be an ongoing discussion,\" Sutro said.

Joseph Ospital, senior building inspector, and plan-review engineer Joseph Chan explained DBI’s process. Chan said DBI does not perform a full structural calculation review during the site-permit phase while a permit remains under suspension; the department performs limited checks (including the SSPA — Slope and Seismic Hazardous Zone Protection — checklist) and later reviews structural calculations when the permit proceeds to plan check. \"Until the permit is released from suspension, we can start review of any submittal regarding the structural,\" Chan said.

Vice President J. R. Epler and Commissioner Lopez both said they were sympathetic to the Adairs’ desire for transparency but found that the newly produced papers did not meet the rehearing standard. \"I go to our technical rules, with respect to the rehearing request, and I see neither new facts that go to the matter that was before us... Nor do I see manifest injustice at this time,\" Vice President Epler said. Commissioner Lopez agreed and moved to deny the rehearing request; the board voted 3-0 to deny it.

The board’s denial preserves its earlier March decision to uphold the site permit as properly issued. The decision leaves DBI as the agency responsible for structural review during plan check, and it does not alter DBI’s stated process for assessing shoring and structural calculations.

The matter was submitted and the board moved on to the next agenda item.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Apr 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 23 denied a rehearing request from Lana and John Adair concerning a site permit for 3160 Jackson Street, voting 3-0 that the appellants had not shown new or different material facts or a manifest injustice that would change the board’s earlier decision.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6577599,"Board upholds site permit for 79 Langton Street despite neighbor's light-and-ventilation and notice concerns",2420,2426000,5332,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8&start=2426&end=5","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8/thumbnail_2426000.jpg","/articles/6577599/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-upholds-site-permit-for-79-Langton-Street-despite-neighbors-light-and-ventilation-and-notice-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6577599-d0406db80f6501ef4af5f214620deea0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092293&Signature=RX78OQD7D-ADgwF2WmlfcECOSPcr490KMXquPWYn9URzFx0y33oaZGuRd7YiqrSTH4qoE~p6lOc~v5edkdYcf6wt7E1idPUoSx3XzsehrrYZ1RKMnV4GSNOCdDR-EARAi37VyEC0ek1LVVLCc8Qh-wYDR05S9oCW6SPVcLpqxVWN3uq6cCKojSIrddIn8MS6I~AAHlxU~o4rFAr-zaNJl-5chGs88AiScwwGCN2OD3fhxhAqWI1yNYKJCJsKeCbTKGDpZi28Mhl9C7AWSXznV4TGQU-CoOUNwXNiy75jGZzBp6HrGkiOeYim1srM80ohBoWkA7z2R0JlXODD6-X2hQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 23 denied an appeal by William Ayoub challenging a site permit issued to Dragonfly Investment Group for 79 Langton Street, voting 3-0 to uphold the December 2024 permit.

Ayoub, who owns the adjacent property at 73–77 Langton and said he has owned it for more than 40 years, described loss of light and ventilation for existing tenants and said he did not receive required notice as the project resumed. His daughter, Janine Ayoub Kubiak, read his statement to the board: \"This project is a is a Goliath LLC backed by institutional capital, and I am an 83 year old David trying to make my property livable for my tenants,\" she said. Ayoub’s presentation urged accommodations to preserve light and ventilation, including skylights or other changes to the sponsor’s design.

Appellants' counsel argued Ayoub had conversations in earlier years with a prior developer and that the project had moved forward without adequate notice to the current owner. Appellant counsel sought either a redesign that would preserve lot-line windows or other mitigation for the longtime tenants.

The permit holder’s counsel, Melinda Sarjapour, said the project was entitled through a Planning Commission large-project authorization in 2018 and that required notices were mailed at that time. \"The site permit was properly issued, and appellants had provided no evidence to the contrary,\" Sarjapour told the board. She and project architect Will Millard said the three-unit building on the narrow 25-foot lot was designed to meet code and that proposed light-well modifications offered by the appellants were infeasible without a complete redesign.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator with the Planning Department, told the board the project was approved in February 2018 under state density-bonus rules and a large project authorization; the entitlement was not appealed at that time. Teague explained that the project later moved through administrative steps due to changes in the planning code and COVID-related timing extensions and that the current site permit matches the 2018 approval. He said planning code standards do not provide specific protections for property-line windows and that, under current state law and the Housing Accountability Act, additional local requirements beyond objective code standards are very limited.

DBI staff confirmed the permit was signed off on the basis of information provided by the registered design professional and the project sponsor. Joseph Ospital, a senior building inspector, summarized building-code provisions for habitable-room light and ventilation and the exceptions that allow mechanical ventilation in lieu of exterior openings for certain spaces. \"I don't know of any protections afforded to lot line windows,\" Ospital said, and noted the department’s focus on fire safety and code compliance for lot-line construction.

Board members acknowledged the real impacts on Ayoub’s tenants and Ayoub’s long-standing ownership, and they described sympathy for his situation. But they found the permit had been issued in compliance with applicable planning and building standards and that the entitlement process — including public notice associated with the 2018 approval — had been the proper time to raise design objections. Commissioner Lopez moved to deny the appeal; the board voted 3-0 to uphold the site permit.

The decision leaves the 79 Langton site permit in place and does not compel redesign or mitigation by the sponsor. The board’s ruling emphasizes the limits of the Board of Appeals’ review—whether a permit was properly issued under existing laws and codes—rather than broader policy choices about light, views and urban density.","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 23 denied an appeal by William Ayoub challenging a site permit for 79 Langton Street, voting 3-0 to uphold the December 2024 permit.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6577596,"Board of Appeals — April 23, 2025: votes at a glance",0,398000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8&start=398&end=398","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113420-77d8d83dbdfc2848cc24ef082f312ba8/thumbnail_398000.jpg","/articles/6577596/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-April-23-2025-votes-at-a-glance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6577596-fcc1fd0286cdc2f49b128b0bac813e4d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771092293&Signature=DySiwipUYkJeNJdsd41EahMjMZCDTVOqQJ059L6wY2TeBhBfWt-27qQ3voI08fxTvb81qw0iMofyNS3~yMAyihPPHyPVfyZDOSt7DlE-Mvs9aiEEdicYWT--QgEMOKp61AYFCgPO-odsCbFU6~goSmovF2KUe2QIE0ZZ7HroifvjZhEJXXuqgj-622FgdgNYLu69nx8yQIC708rm83Vn6tmj7NFHbjQWQBRiG0MqdGH9jdRYvyQht2rwuNCaBCrjO3MZC1j6D1g2vVke5JZ1angI1qEkNcsNfkQG8miPDRgTc-wtxOfb-W6fGVfaU4MtAAfVjg6lxmHHjHtoTKWJBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals took the following formal actions on April 23, 2025:

- Adopted the minutes of the April 9, 2025 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Lopez; carried 3-0.

- Denied a rehearing request for appeal AP-25-004 (3160 Jackson Street). Motion to deny made by President Trezvino; vote 3-0. The board found the appellants had not shown new or material facts or manifest injustice.

- Denied the appeal of the site permit for 79 Langton Street (appeal AP-2052). Motion to deny made by Commissioner Lopez; carried 3-0. The board concluded the permit was properly issued and consistent with applicable planning and building code standards and state housing rules; the entitlement stage (2018) was the appropriate time to raise design objections.

- President Trezvino continued item 6 (appeal at 870 North Pointe Street) to June 18 under board rule 7(c) for permit-holder or HOA representation and for DBI to submit a brief. The continuance was exercised under the presiding officer rule; no roll-call vote was recorded.

These items represent the recorded formal actions taken during the meeting; other agenda items were discussed but either submitted without action or continued as noted.","Summary of formal board actions at the April 23 meeting: adoption of minutes, denial of a rehearing request, denial of an appeal for 79 Langton Street, and a presiding-officer continuance of item 6 to June 18.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Appeals denies rehearing request in 3160 Jackson Street permit dispute

Board upholds site permit for 79 Langton Street despite neighbor's light-and-ventilation and notice concerns

Board of Appeals — April 23, 2025: votes at a glance