Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overturns planning denial to allow small wine‑tasting counter at CocoaLuxe on Haight
Summary
The Board of Appeals ruled 5‑0 to overrule a planning letter of determination and disapproval for a proposed Type 2 winery tasting counter inside CocoaLuxe chocolate shop on Haight Street, directing findings to follow.
The Board of Appeals overruled a Planning Department denial and associated zoning administrator letter of determination on Feb. 11, allowing the owner of CocoaLuxe to pursue a small Type 2 winegrower tasting counter at 1673 Haight Street, subject to formal findings to be adopted later.
Attorney Jeremy Paul, representing 122 West Winery and CocoaLuxe, described a small accessory tasting counter with no more than four seats and emphasized that the Haight Street restricted‑use subdistrict’s listed exclusions did not explicitly include Type 2 winegrower tasting rooms. "This is a lovely shop... and it's going to be very neighborhood friendly," Paul told the board, arguing that a tasting counter that serves the proprietor's product would be an artisanal, low‑impact addition to the commercial mix.
Tina Tam, for Planning, urged caution and cited Planning Code §781.9, which generally prohibits new on‑sale or off‑sale liquor establishments in the Haight RUSD; she said Planning’s denial was based on that code interpretation and that planning staff did not perform neighborhood notification for a permit the department believed could not be processed. She also noted that a Type 2 winegrower license is registered to an address in Sebastopol and that a duplicate or branch registration would be necessary for local operation.
Multiple merchants and neighborhood supporters, including Ted Lowenburg of the Haight‑Ashbury Improvement Association and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi (letter read into the record), urged the board to allow the tasting counter as a modest, locally produced complement that could draw foot traffic and help fill vacant storefronts.
After discussion about code language and the likely low‑impact nature of the proposal, a majority of commissioners concluded the RUSD exclusion language did not clearly preclude a Type 2 tasting counter of the kind proposed. The board voted 5‑0 to overrule the zoning administrator's letter of determination and the planning denial, with findings to be drafted later. That action directs Planning to process the permit consistent with the board’s ruling and applicable ABC licensing requirements.
