Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction over elevator noise dispute at 3382 Clay Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a request to take jurisdiction over an elevator permit at 3382 Clay Street after neighbors alleged a private promise to "insulate all motor noise" was broken. The board found no error in the permit process and voted 3–2 to deny the jurisdiction request.
A divided San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 25 declined to take jurisdiction over a dispute between neighbors about an elevator installation at 3382 Clay Street, saying it found no error in the permit issuance.
Jonathan Sachs told the board he and his wife, Evelyn Louie, were promised in writing that the project would "insulate all motor noise" and said the installed elevator would transmit roughly 20 decibels of sound into his bedroom (he said that could reach 40 dBA with an open window). "We ask tonight that this board take jurisdiction over mister Meezy's permit because our right to challenge that permit at its issuance was usurped by a false promise," Sachs said.
Attorney Steve Vettel, representing permit holders Peter and Carol Mezzi, said the permit was issued on July 6, 2010, the hoistway was nearly complete and the owners spent about $166,000 relying on the permit. Vettel cited an acoustical assessment that estimated interior noise at about 20 dBA and urged the board not to suspend a permit already under construction. "Prompt completion of the elevator project is necessary for Carol's health," Vettel said, noting she has Parkinson's disease and needs the elevator to remain in the home.
Joseph Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection told commissioners he had inspected the foundation and rough framing and that drywall was in place; he could not confirm whether acoustic insulation had been inspected and said he would add a separate complaint to have DBI verify insulation records.
Commissioners split over whether the matter raised a jurisdictional error or a private dispute. Some favored a short continuance and voluntary mediation to allow acoustic mitigation before the elevator is installed; others said the permit and notices were correct and that private agreements between neighbors do not create grounds for Board jurisdiction. Vice President Michael Garcia moved to deny jurisdiction; the motion passed 3–2 and the board recorded the denial.
The board's action leaves other remedies available to the neighbor, including administrative complaints to DBI and private legal action, the meeting record shows. The board did not adopt remedial conditions or suspensions in this proceeding.
Next steps: DBI said it would inspect whether insulation required by the approved plans was installed. The board did not set a further hearing on this matter at the meeting.
