Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Museum Park tenant‑improvement permit after technical review; residents and owners disagree on conditions
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld a building permit for office tenant improvements at 725 Folsom (Museum Park) after hearing resident concerns about noise and vibration. Owners had commissioned acoustic testing; the board voted 4–1 to uphold the permit and declined to impose the residents’ proposed use restrictions and permanent deed restrictions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 8 reviewed an appeal by Museum Park residents challenging tenant improvements proposed for the long‑vacant ground‑floor commercial space at 725 Folsom Street. Residents sought use restrictions, structural mitigation and independent verification to prevent noise and vibration transfer into condominiums above. The owners (tenants in common) and their consultants presented acoustic studies concluding noise would be 10 dB below residential background levels; the board ultimately upheld the permit by 4–1.
Residents, led by appellant Vicky Hart, urged enforceable conditions including: no amplified music or large group meetings after 8 p.m.; business hours limited to 8 a.m.–10 p.m.; mechanical systems mounted per the Salter report; and Salter verification and a closure letter after installation. Salter Associates and an independent reviewer (Wells Fargo & Associates) acknowledged the analysis assumed typical office speech levels (72 dBA daytime) and cautioned that other activities (amplified audio, parties) could change outcomes; they recommended follow‑up testing and installation of vibration isolators on heat pumps.
The property owners presented plans including door silencers, overhead door closers, upgraded vibration isolators on existing/ new mechanical units and contractual engagement with Charles Salter Associates for post‑installation verification. Planning staff noted the zoning (MUR) allows office use on the ground floor in this case. After extended negotiation, the owners agreed to engage acoustical consultants for installation verification; however they declined blanket restrictions on hours and activities and resisted some deed‑recorded restrictions the residents sought. The board concluded the permit was issued in accordance with code, accepted the parties’ plan for consultant verification, but did not adopt the residents’ proposed permanent restrictions. The upholding vote was 4–1.
