Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise And Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Rooster Tail noise appeal to allow tests, settlement talks
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal by neighbor Michiko Yamada challenging a rooftop noise variance for Rooster Tail Restaurant to Nov. 19 to allow additional technical study and settlement discussions after testimony about structure‑borne vibration and interior noise levels.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 8 continued an appeal challenging a rooftop noise variance granted to Rooster Tail Restaurant at 1963 Sutter Street, sending the matter to Nov. 19 so the parties can exchange limited new briefs, pursue settlement talks and allow technical follow‑up testing.
Appellant Michiko Yamada told the board the restaurant’s rooftop fan noise and vibration have affected her living space for roughly 2½ years, producing humming and a low‑frequency tone that she says is measurably intrusive. Acoustical consultant Eric Yee of Charles Salter Associates presented a spectral analysis showing a tonal peak near 125 Hz that his firm said is consistent with a structure‑borne path (ductwork or rigid attachments) and argued that simple wrapping of a duct had not solved the problem.
Rooster Tail owner Gerard Darien and his team told the board they had followed DPH guidance and performed remedial steps (wrapping and isolators) and maintained that rooftop noise measurements were marginally over commercial limits while interior readings at Ms. Yamada’s apartment were below interior thresholds. Deputy City Attorney Sherry Kaiser and DPH noise staff explained that DPH enforcement focuses on objective decibel (dBA) limits in the noise ordinance and that the department had measured interior levels in Ms. Yamada’s residence at about 38–40 dBA—below interior standards.
Acoustician Eric Yee proposed a diagnostic program using accelerometers and sound level measurements to cycle fans on and off (he estimated an initial diagnostic fee of roughly $2,000) and recommended isolating ductwork and ensuring spring isolators function correctly if vibration were the root cause.
After extended questioning and public comment from multiple neighbors citing a long history of disturbance and concern about precedent, Commissioner Frank Fung moved to continue the appeal to Nov. 19 to allow settlement efforts and limited additional briefing (three pages per party, staggered schedule to allow responses). The board voted 4–0 to continue the matter.
The continuance gives both sides time to pursue the targeted diagnostic testing and to report whether engineering fixes or negotiated mitigation can resolve the dispute before the board reconvenes.
