Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise And Hours topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues debate over 25 Lusk rooftop after permittee submits new sound study
Summary
After neighbors objected to noise and hours of operation for a proposed rooftop dining area at 25 Lusk, the board continued the case to Sept. 27 to allow review of a newly submitted consultant noise study, revised plans and a clear statement of hours of commercial operation.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued a long‑running dispute over a proposed rooftop dining area at 25 Lusk Street to Sept. 27 after permit counsel presented a new noise measurement and mitigation analysis.
Neighbors appealed earlier approvals and objected to both the rooftop use and direct communications they said had been made to the board; one appellant alleged the permittee had prompted outside contacts and submitted new evidence by email in ways the appellant said violated board rules. The appellant asked that any new evidence not be accepted without time to rebut and asked the board to deny the permit or impose stricter curfew and mitigation conditions.
Permit counsel told the board that a consultant conducted field measurements on Aug. 14, produced a sound report and proposed mitigation measures. Counsel also reported the ABC (State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) conditions for alcohol service on the roof: sales, service and consumption permitted 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday–Wednesday and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Thursday–Saturday (the permit holder withdrew an ABC protest). Counsel offered to include mitigation measures as conditions of approval and to provide revised plans showing the proposed physical mitigation (barrier walls, curtains, sound panels) and hours of operation.
Planning staff advised the board that a larger retractable canopy could trigger gross floor area/impact fees and that any plan revisions should be submitted in advance so planning can check code compliance and potential impact fees. The board directed the permit holder to submit plans that incorporate the proposed mitigation and a clear statement of the hours of commercial operation, and it gave both sides up to six pages of additional briefing or exhibits; those materials were to be filed by Sept. 21 ahead of the hearing continued to Sept. 27.
Why it matters: the case is a typical urban land‑use conflict in which rooftop restaurant uses raise neighborhood noise and privacy concerns while permit holders point to other regulatory constraints (ABC hours) and technical mitigation. The board’s continuance seeks to allow factual review (sound measurements, mitigation plans) before making a final determination.
Representative quotes: "Based on additional analysis I think we can get to that...we engaged another consultant to do 3 things. 1 to take actual measurements which didn't occur until August 14," said permit counsel.
"There are 4 elements related to barrier wall, canopy, speakers, vertical curtains and sound panel," said a commissioner urging careful review.
Next steps: the board continued the hearing to Sept. 27 and directed the permit holder to file revised plans and hours of operation by Sept. 21 and instructed Planning and DBI to review the materials for code compliance and report back at the continued hearing.
