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

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.