Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Notifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies neighbor’s jurisdiction request over 99 Saint Germain elevator permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5‑0 to deny a jurisdiction request from neighbor Edward Yee challenging an elevator permit for 99 St. Germain (permit 202208049876). Planning and DBI told the board notices were mailed within a 100‑foot radius and a 30‑day posting occurred; the applicant’s attorney said the request lacked merit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 6 denied a jurisdiction request from an adjacent neighbor challenging a permit to install an elevator at 99 Saint Germain.
The request, filed Nov. 6, asked the board to take jurisdiction over alteration permit number 202208049876, which planning records show was issued Oct. 5, 2023; the appeal period ended Oct. 20, 2023. Requester Edward Yee told the board he and other neighbors were not notified and asked the board to retake jurisdiction. During his public comment he raised safety concerns and characterized the ongoing disputes with the permit holder as severe.
Emily Charley, attorney for the permit holders, denied allegations of criminal conduct and said the jurisdiction request failed to meet the legal standard. Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board that both permits for the shared elevator (permit numbers ending in 9876 and 9878) were filed and processed concurrently, that mail notices were sent to owners and residents within a 100‑foot radius and that a 3‑11 poster was posted on the property from Dec. 16, 2022 through Jan. 16, 2023. DBI’s Matthew Green corroborated Planning’s account, verified a signature on the permit application and said he saw no error by the city that would justify jurisdiction.
A commissioner moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the ground the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to miss the appeal deadline. The motion passed 5‑0 and the request was denied.
Next steps were not specified at the meeting; the board made no substantive change to the permits themselves during this proceeding.
