Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Entertainment Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Entertainment Commission’s conditional permit for Regent restaurant
Summary
After testimony from tenants, hotel management and police, San Francisco’s Board of Appeals rejected an appeal by the Rincon Tenants Association and upheld the Entertainment Commission’s conditional grant for Regent (139 Stewart St.), citing code compliance and existing mitigation conditions; vote was 4–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 16 denied an appeal by the Rincon Tenants Association and upheld the Entertainment Commission’s conditional grant of a place-of-entertainment permit for Regent restaurant at 139 Stewart Street.
Appellant David Osgood, representing the Rincon Tenants Association, told the board that residents in nearby high-rise buildings have complained about amplified music, loud crowds and street disturbances since Regent opened in 2012. He played video footage and said the restaurant’s application inaccurately stated that the nearby Hotel Griffin had not complained; Osgood asked the board to reduce allowed hours and questioned whether the Commission’s required public-posting notice was posted in a conspicuous place.
Regent owner Kit Truong said he has run restaurants for 15 years and presented sound-pressure testing he said showed music was “inaudible across the street.” Truong described security plans and forthcoming sound‑insulation work and introduced a hired audio technician who testified that measured sound outside the restaurant was at ambient levels.
Cammy Blackstone, representing the Entertainment Commission, said the Commission reviewed the application under Municipal Police Code Sec. 10.60, obtained planning and police sign‑offs and found the application met the narrow legal grounds required to deny a permit. Southern Police Station Officer Simon Chan told the board he had responded to a small number of complaints over the years and that on one March incident the CAD record showed an altercation linked to a private event; he said he had advised the owner in 2012 to obtain permits for entertainment.
After questioning from commissioners about notice, the good‑neighbor conditions attached to the permit (including keeping doors closed during entertainment and a sound‑testing requirement) and conflicting accounts of who had complained, the board concluded the Entertainment Commission had not erred and that the conditional grant was code‑compliant. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to deny the appeal; the motion passed 4–0.
The board noted that the permit remains subject to the Commission’s conditions (including sound testing and good‑neighbor provisions) and that residents and the restaurant both retain enforcement avenues under those conditions. No further hearing on this appeal was scheduled.
