Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals grants neighborappeal, finds 95 Saint Germain permit improperly issued
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted an appeal over a permit for 95 Saint Germain, finding the project27s plans encroach into a recorded private easement and ordering the permit revised; commissioners cited a 2.75-inch intrusion and the presence of a roof‑deck on approved plans as grounds for relief.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 14 granted an appeal challenging a site permit for 95 Saint Germain Avenue, concluding that the permit as issued did not properly account for a private easement and included plan elements inconsistent with an earlier board decision.
Appellant counsel Brian Russell told the board the permit27s drawings “admit that 2.75 inches extends from the Yee27s current exterior wall into the Yee27s own stairwell space,” and argued that the court judgment recorded May 20, 2020, and related easement rights prevent the proposed intrusion. Russell said the city had notice of the easement and that issuing a permit that encroaches would be unlawful.
The project team and their counsel disputed that reading of the judgment. Permit counsel Sybil Renick and architect Michael Garavallia said the 2.75‑inch projection was the minimal clearance required by the elevator design and that the court order27s principal role was to prevent personal items and temporary obstructions in the easement rather than to bar permitted construction. Project counsel also noted the permit implements an approved variance and that the design sought to enable accessibility for aging residents.
Planning Department deputy zoning administrator Tina Tam told the board that plan sheets in the administrative record differ and that the permit as stamped included a roof deck that the 2017 variance had required be removed. City building staff said the elevator footprint and the technical building-code approach raised civil questions best resolved with clarity about the court order.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised the board that it may consider the court judgment as part of its record but that, if the order27s meaning is unclear, the appropriate step is to seek judicial clarification. After deliberation the board voted 4–0 to grant the appeal, citing both the apparent encroachment into the recorded easement and the presence of a roof deck on the approved plan. The decision requires the permit to be revised consistent with the board27s prior direction and with the court27s order, or for the parties to seek judicial clarity.
The board did not prescribe a specific remedy beyond requiring the permit and plans be corrected to conform with the variance decision and applicable easement constraints; further changes may follow based on the permit holder27s resubmission or any court action.
What happens next: the permit as issued is not effective in its current form; the project sponsor may revise plans or the parties may seek court clarification on the recorded easement and the 2017 variance conditions.
