Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elevator Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses decision on 780 Post Street elevator after day-long hearing on safety and displacement
Summary
After testimony from inspectors, an elevator technician, an architect and the building owner, the Abatement Appeals Board continued its decision on the order of abatement for 780 Post Street for one month to allow the owner and department to produce a more detailed plan balancing safety, accessibility and tenant displacement.
The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously to continue the case of 780 Post Street for one month after a detailed hearing about an elevator that inspectors say "starts and stops abruptly" and "jolts" riders.
James Sambon Matsue, acting chief housing inspector for the department, described multiple inspections and photos showing persistent leveling and stopping problems and recommended that the order of abatement be upheld. "We received a complaint 8 months ago … the elevator starts and stops abruptly," Matsue said, presenting reinspection findings and photographs.
Robert Cotton, the elevator service provider who has maintained the unit for decades, told the board the car is a nearly original, roughly 1920s-era rheostatic-control elevator and that the State of California elevator division is backlogged on inspections. "This elevator was manufactured and installed in the 1920s and it's 99% original," Cotton said, adding he can make frequent adjustments but the equipment lacks modern automatic load leveling.
Architect Richard Parker estimated that a full elevator replacement and the required structural and life-safety upgrades could exceed $1.2 million and would likely require displacing a number of tenants for at least a year. "That's over a million 2 just to replace the shaft and put in a new elevator," Parker said, explaining the need to expand the hoistway, replace wood guide rails with steel and add structural supports.
Owner Sarosh Khumana asked the board to consider interim measures such as prominent signage and increased maintenance rather than an immediate replacement that could remove housing units from the market. Public commenters urged the board to weigh public safety against tenant displacement and to develop clearer policy guidance on aging elevators.
Commissioners signaled the case presents a broader policy challenge: balancing life-safety risk and the high cost and displacement associated with modernizing century-old elevators in multiunit housing. The board moved to continue the matter for one month and asked the department and owner to return with a plan for interim safety measures and a timeline for modernization or replacement. The motion carried unanimously.
