Board of Appeals upholds site permit for 79 Langton, denying neighbor’s appeal

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-0 on April 23 to deny an appeal by William Ayoub challenging a site permit issued to Dragonfly Investment Group for a five-story, three-unit residential building at 79 Langton Street.

The appeal (No. 25-002) challenged the December 31, 2024, site permit for a type 2A, three-unit, five-story building that the appellant said would close lot-line windows and reduce natural light and ventilation in his adjacent 1906 building at 73–77 Langton. The board found the permit was properly issued and consistent with applicable code and prior entitlement approvals.

Attorney Ledbetter, representing the appellants, said the project would severely reduce light and air to longtime tenants and argued Mr. Ayoub had not received timely notice when the project resumed after a multi-year pause. "This property was built in 1906 and should be considered a historical landmark," Janine Ayoub Kubiak read on behalf of her father, William Ayoub, describing impacts on tenants and the building.

Permit-holder counsel, Melinda Sarjapour of Ruben, Genius and Rose, argued the site permit complies with planning and building codes, that the original design entitlements were approved by the Planning Commission in February 2018, and that the time to challenge those entitlements has passed. "California landowners do not have a right to light, air or views over neighboring properties," Sarjapour said, noting that the project complies with state density bonus and the Housing Accountability Act.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the original project was approved through a Large Project Authorization in 2018 after design and environmental review, and that the project remained consistent with the approval. Teague said notice and the entitlement process occurred in 2018, and that because of later code changes and COVID-era timeline adjustments the sponsor filed an administrative update in March 2025 to align the project with current code.

DBI staff confirmed the site permit was issued based on the registered design professional's submissions and that building-code provisions govern whether existing windows must be closed when adjacent construction occurs. DBI staff said the code provisions cited by the appellant do not require a developer to retrofit neighboring buildings’ ventilation; mechanical ventilation or other remedies on the neighbor’s side can be used where appropriate.

Board members acknowledged the tangible impacts on the Ayoub property and tenants but said the board’s role is limited to determining whether the site permit was lawfully issued. President Trezvino, Vice President Eppler and Commissioner Lopez all concluded the permit met legal standards and voted to deny the appeal.

The board’s action upholds the December 31, 2024, site permit (application 201809200921) and allows the permit-holder to proceed with the DBI plan-check and construction-permit process subject to the standard building-department reviews.

The board did not order any additional mitigation or conditions for the neighboring property; Mr. Ayoub’s counsel did ask the sponsor to consider design adjustments or an internal accommodation for windows on the existing building, but the board said the planning and building codes do not require that relief at the site-permit stage.