Schulz

Schulz v. Milne

Good Law
849 F. Supp. 708·94 Daily Journal DAR 6688·1994 WL 158828·1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5552
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 22, 1994C-93-0352-VRWCalifornia4,315 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER.

In 1988, plaintiffs, Paul Schulz and Deborah Savage, purchased a house at 251 Ripley Street located in the Bernal Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. The house was dilapidated, unsafe and uninhabitable. Plaintiffs decided to renovate the house and filed an application with the City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning and Department of Public Works (together, “City”) for the required permits. In the application, plaintiffs requested permission to add a floor to the existing house, alter the existing interior and basement and add twelve feet to the rear of the house. The City allegedly told plaintiffs that they had to work out any renovation plans with defendants Bernal Heights Neighborhood Review Board (“the Board”) and Terry Milne, an officer on the Board. The Board is a local citizen’s group that offers comments and recommendations to the City on building projects in the Bernal Heights neighborhood.

From 1988 to 1991, plaintiffs pursued an application to the City and the Board for a permit to repair and upgrade their property. According to plaintiffs, they submitted approximately thirteen revisions to the initial permit application, and incurred…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.