Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medjool Rooftop topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Medjool rooftop dispute to Feb. 10 after hours of testimony; rooftop may remain while CU process proceeds
Summary
After several hours of testimony from neighbors, planning staff and hundreds of supporters and opponents, the San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal over Medjoolrestaurantrooftop operations to Feb. 10, 2010, while holding enforcement penalties in abeyance and urging the parties to pursue conditional-use and targeted noise mitigation.
After more than three hours of public testimony and legal argument, the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 16 continued the contentious appeal over the rooftop restaurant and bar at Medjool, 2516–2524 Mission Street, to Feb. 10, 2010. The board voted 4–1 to give planning and the restaurant additional time to pursue a conditional-use application and any required environmental review; while the appeal remains pending, penalties are held in abeyance and the rooftop operation may continue pending good-faith progress.
Planning staff told the board the rooftop is operating as a principal eating- and drinking-use and therefore requires conditional-use authorization and likely focused environmental review for noise. Craig Nikkides of the Planning Department said the roof deck has its own entry, bar and cooking equipment and therefore functions as a separate principal use rather than a small accessory outdoor area. "Medjool's rooftop eating and drinking use is an outdoor activity located where conditional use authorization would be required," Nikkides said in his presentation.
Owner and counsel pushed back. Greg Gladstone, representing the building owner and tenant, argued the restaurant had substantial documentation, a certificate of final completion and construction history that created a reasonable expectation the rooftop use could continue. Gladstone asked the board to consider equitable estoppel on grounds the owner relied on prior permit activity and spent money improving the rooftop. He outlined measures the restaurant said it would adopt if the board granted leniency: installing a sound-attenuating canopy, ending live amplified music on the roof, establishing a decibel limit and hiring security to manage crowd noise.
Neighbors and nearby community organizations urged the opposite. Multiple speakers from the San Francisco Buddhist Center and adjacent residences described recurring, amplified noise, late-night complaints and sleep disruption. Planning advisers and acoustical consultants were discussed as part of the path forward if a CU is pursued.
Board members debated legal remedies at length. Several commissioners said estoppel was legally difficult given the city—s ability to rescind permits issued in error, while others sympathized with the restaurant's economic and community roles and sought a path that would preserve jobs while addressing noise. The board's action to continue the matter preserves the department's enforcement discretion while allowing the CU/environmental process to proceed; Planning Department staff confirmed that enforcement penalties do not accrue while the appeal is active and the parties make a timely, good‑faith effort on the conditional‑use/environmental review.
What happens next: The hearing will return Feb. 10, 2010, unless the restaurant and Planning move the conditional‑use application forward sooner. Planning staff said a focused environmental analysis (a mitigated negative declaration or focused EIR on noise) would likely be required if a CU is filed. The board asked the parties to begin implementing noise mitigation steps immediately as a sign of good faith and to reduce neighborhood impacts while the formal process proceeds.
