Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 119 Stillings despite neighbors’ privacy and enforcement concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld a building permit for 119 Stillings, rejecting an appeal over privacy, tree removal and neighborhood impacts; commissioners noted prior enforcement history against the owners but concluded the permit as issued was code‑compliant and departments would keep the project under review.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously Sept. 14 to deny an appeal of an alteration permit for 119 Stillings and to uphold the Department of Building Inspection’s decision to issue the permit.
Appellant Julie Goot and neighbors said the permit-holder’s removal of mature backyard trees exposed their property to privacy loss and cited a recent city lawsuit alleging that the property owner or related parties had illegally converted other properties into multi‑unit housing. The appellants sought either denial of the permit or a continuance so outstanding litigation and enforcement actions could be considered.
Permit holders (represented by family members who purchased the property) said they had acquired a deteriorated, mostly vacant house, applied for the appropriate permits and intended to occupy the home; they described a modest rear deck and a plan to plant replacement trees. Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) reviewed the filed plans and said they were code‑compliant. DBI inspector Joe Duffy confirmed the permit was a Form 8 over‑the‑counter approval and noted a previously issued notice of violation (August 2015) for a vacant/abandoned building remains open but enforcement is paused where permit activity is underway.
Commissioners expressed a dilemma: concern about the owners’ enforcement history and neighborhood blight weighed against the legal standard that a timely and code‑compliant permit cannot be denied solely on suspicion of future violations. Several commissioners said the departments should keep the project under a strict “microscope.” Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the motion passed 5–0.
The board suggested affected neighbors file complaints with DBI if they observe work that appears outside the permit scope. The board did not continue the item for resolution of the unrelated litigation.
