Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Noise Laguna Honda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hearing on Laguna Honda catering hall, asks for noise-abatement plan
Summary
The Board continued Appeal 9025 regarding a notice of violation for 256 Laguna Honda Ave., asking property owners to return on June 10 with a definitive noise-abatement plan after debating whether the venue is a catering/assembly hall or analogous to a restaurant.
The San Francisco Board continued an appeal over a notice of violation issued to the operator of a longstanding catering/assembly hall at 256 Laguna Honda Avenue, voting 4-0 to give the property owners 30 days to present a concrete noise-abatement plan.
Tara Sullivan of the Planning Department told the Board the property is a legal nonconforming assembly/catering hall in an RH1D residential district and that the department’s position is the 1998 zoning-administrator interpretation allowing restaurants a “reasonable” period to finish service does not apply to catering halls. Sullivan noted the department’s investigation found the hall had stayed open past the 10 p.m. closing time referenced in Planning Code Section 186 and cited the department’s February 12, 2009 notice of violation.
Attorney Steve Williams, representing the owners and tenant, said the site has been used for assembly and catering since the 1940s and disputed the department’s selective reliance on exhibits. Williams described mitigation steps underway — sound curtains, window caulking and replacement, floodlights and a direct phone line to the operator — and warned that strict enforcement of a 10 p.m. cutoff could jeopardize the business. “If they lose another tenant, the place will become untenable,” Williams said.
Operator Ron Dumont told the Board about operations at the site, estimating about 65% of their activity involves cooking and saying most events do not stay late, though some Saturday events may run until midnight. Planning’s Sullivan acknowledged the interpretation from 1998 focused on nonconforming restaurant uses and that even if it applied, it would allow roughly an hour beyond 10 p.m., not routinely until midnight.
Commissioners expressed mixed views: some emphasized the long-standing nonconforming use and the similarity of patron behavior to restaurants, while others stressed neighbor disturbance and pressed for demonstrable nuisance controls. The city attorney reminded the Board that its standard of review is whether the zoning administrator erred or abused discretion. On motion of Vice President Tanya Peterson, the Board continued Appeal 9025 to June 10 for presentation of specific physical and policy measures to control noise, odors and other nuisance factors. The vote to continue was 4-0.
