Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals overturns rooftop noise variance for Rooster Tail; findings to be adopted Dec. 10
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to overturn a Department of Public Health rooftop noise variance for Rooster Tail restaurant at 1963 Sutter Street after neighbors and experts described persistent noise and vibration. The Board will adopt written findings and delay final action to allow additional settlement efforts by Dec. 10, 2014.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Nov. 19 to overturn a Department of Public Health (DPH) rooftop noise variance issued for Rooster Tail restaurant at 1963 Sutter Street, after neighbors and technical witnesses described continuing noise and structure-borne vibration in adjacent apartments.
Michiko Yamada, the appellant, told the Board she and other residents have endured the noise for three years and have tried to negotiate with the business: “We’ve already spent over $10,000 to resolve this noise dispute,” she said, urging the Board to “overturn this variance” and order the permit holder to remedy the problem.
Representatives for the permit holder argued they have taken mitigation steps. David Silverman, who represented the permit holder, said the owner had spent more than $8,000 to install acoustical lagging around ductwork and that city experts had found the rooftop noise level covered by the variance is not audible: “Mr. Darien has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps both to comply with the law and to address the concerns expressed by the appellant,” Silverman said.
DPH staff and the acting manager of the Noise Program, June Weintraub, told the board the department’s jurisdiction applies to rooftop noise but not to some light-well measurements. Weintraub said department staff had suggested wrapping the ductwork as a mediation measure and that the rooftop noise was granted a variance because inspectors concluded no one could hear the rooftop sound. She described the department’s role as enforcing public-health-based noise standards and said overturning the variance would not necessarily provide a public-health benefit.
Multiple neighbors testified that mitigation had not resolved their experience of low-frequency vibration and audible noise inside units. Sean O’Brien, a tenant in an adjacent building, said after the restaurant installed its system “our apartment shakes and vibrates” and residents’ belongings rattle.
After hearing technical testimony from acoustician Charles Salter and his associate Eric Yi, and extensive public comment, Commissioner Frank Fung moved to overturn the variance on the ground that measured sound levels do not conform with the city noise ordinance, but to delay final adoption of written findings so the parties could attempt additional settlement. The motion passed 4–0. The Board directed staff to prepare written findings for adoption at its Dec. 10 meeting.
Outcome and next steps: The Board overturned the variance and will adopt written findings on Dec. 10, 2014. The Board’s action does not itself impose a specific mitigation plan, instead leaving time for the parties to negotiate and for the Board to issue findings that will guide the department’s final determination.
