forward with that. >> is there a second? vice president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would speak against the motion. we're not sure that the plans are an accurate. that would be presented during the hearing to determine that, which we could do tonight. also, this whole concept that by mediation you'll come up with this solution, i have seen projects we have continued and continued, hoping they would not need d.r., and more often than not ultimately you end up having the hearing anyway. commissioner sugaya: there is a motion and second to continue to february 3. [roll-call vote] >> that motion passes for-2, commissioners. vice president olague: it is

continued until february 3. commissioner sugaya: i would hope, just for the d.r. requestors' sake, i am going to keep these drawings. vice president olague: the staff has their images, and you mentioned something about talking to their architect. so maybe you could work with the project sponsor to have accurate hearings. >> i think if you talk to staff, they will direct you to what you need to do. >> commissioners, it will you be returning your packets for this? vice president olague: i plan to. if there are new drawings, i will the supplement what i have. it just for the sake of the public, if there is an absent commissioner, sometimes the absent commissioner will request

would continue the item so when their present they can hear it. if we don't get that type of request from the commissioner who will not be present, we usually take it upon ourselves to vote on that. i felt comfortable hearing it tonight, but if we continue with, that is fine. this will give a little more time and maybe more by what will happen between the prime sponsor and a d.r. requestor, but that is generally how it works. commissioner moore: the reason i supported continuance is i believe if somebody says something is wrong that it is wrong. otherwise it i feel i could have a negative affect on how the whole discussion involves, which i did not like to be played. vice president olague: right, and commissioner miguel did not request that it be continued, i just want to clarify. >> commissioners, we are on item

17, case number 2,010.0805, 1787 union street, request for discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. i am mary woods of department's staff. the discretionary review before you is to legalize the removal of the existing classroom enclosure and in its place establish an open patio, which is part of the outdoor activity area under the planning code. the patio is about 9 feet deep by 16 feet wide and about 5 feet off the ground. it will seat about 12 people, for a maximum of four tables. the d.r. requestor is concerned about the nearby impact on residents, lack of privacy, and safety from objects falling from this elevated. . staff recommends that the

commission take d.r. and approve the project with commission because the project site has had continuing commercial activity for over 30 years, and eating and drinking establishment has been operating there since 1985. conditions have been imposed on the proposed project in order to address neighbors' concerns, such as noise and safety. the conditions are listed on page 6 of the staff report. this concludes my summary of the project, and i am available for any questions. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. d.r. requestor? >> please them on the table.

rigid place them on the table. -- place them on the table. >> thank you for agreeing to hear me. ii live directly across from the applicant at 1782 at union street. my husband brought this property 41 years ago, and he has lived there all these years. i have lived there 21 years. just to say, we have always enjoyed life on union street. that is part of the charm of

being there. for the past 30-something years, there has been a bar and restaurant across the street from us at this location. while there has been some noise from the bars and restaurants, we have always managed coexist. we have never called the police or anything. it is always just a part of the neighborhood. unfortunately, the applicant's proposed elevated outside deck and open front would very much upset this longstanding balance. i believe that our community's concerns meet the qualification of exceptional and extraordinary. this drawing right here shows that we have about 57 letters and a little under 50, 47 petitions. the last is where the brickyard is, and the read it -- this is not showing all of this, but the

pink and the red is where we have letters of opposition and petition and the green is where the others are. so i am requesting that the commission denied the application for the elevated. and it may call the front of the building by requiring that the applicant replace the front of the building, which they never had permission to remove, as i am sure that you are aware. and if the applicant wants to start over, that they first complete an environmental analysis that concerns all of the alterations and the changes to the building envelope. and a product of this scope should require -- should definitely require an environmental analysis to address the strong noise impact

to the many nearby ncd homes and the residential zoned homes. i feel that the noise mitigation measures proposed by the staff will not be effective mitigating the boys from an open elevated deck which opens today 3600 square-foot sports bar. this is not neighborhood seating -- neighborhood friendly seating for a bonafide eating establishment. this is a very popular and loud sports bar, known as such by their patrons on yelp and facebook. this would damage the environment of our homes and community and damage our quality of life and the character of our neighborhood. we ask that you deny this project. thank you very much.

vice president olague: thank you. but we have several cards. those in favor of the d.r.? sky -- oh, that with you. gloria smith. >> i think we have powerful photographs, and i want to get the cycled through. i have very short testimony. hopefully we can get those pictures. thank you. these are pictures taken during the day, in front of the brickyard as it is operating now. again, my name is gloria smith. i may local land-use attorney, appearing on behalf of the requestor and the union street neighbors. i think these pictures make fairly clear the brickyard is objecting noise impact out into

the community at levels that are not acceptable in a neighborhood commercial district. staff is recommending that you approve this project with mitigation, and the mitigation what allow the applicant. much at his discretion to decide when the windows and doors could be opened and when people could be on the patio, so long as it is closed by 10:00 p.m. each day. closing the patio at 10:00 p.m. does not address that have a crowd and the heavy drinking that goes on sunday afternoon and sunday evening when there are televised sporting events. people expect a certain amount of noise on friday and saturday nights. i think that is what the ministry corridor is about, but some of these are different. it people have different expectations on sunday morning, and this does not meet this expectations. these are pictures that have been taken on sunday morning and sunday afternoon. staff is recommending that you

approve this project with a class one ceqa exception, which is four small facilities, with mitigation for the noise impact. but the city can only rely on a class 1 ceqa exemption if there is no possibility of the environmental impact. that is in the statute. there is very real evidence this is not complying with the san francisco noise ordinance, and that by definition is a significant impact under ceqa. the city has to do more here. finally, a mitigated ceqa exemption has been illegal in california since 1985. you cannot do a mitigated ceqa exemption. the planning commission must deny this application or prepare a full ceqa document for public review to analyze the severe environmental impact for noise. it would ask that you not approve this project. thank you. -- we ask that you not approve this project.

thank you. vice president olague: thank you. megan? >> hi, my name is megan, and i live directly across from 1787 union street. i have lived there approximately 23 years. all these years, and has been a bar/restaurant there, and i have coexisted with them and their various incarnations, but unfortunately the removal of the front of the building at this location for this establishment, i believe, would drastically change -- actually, what. manila affect the ability of residents that are nearby, especially directly across the street -- actually would directly affect the ability of residents that are nearby. this is not conjecture, because it has already happened. they took off the front of the

building and opened the doors, and the noise levels were completely unbearable and my residence. -- in my residence. i know in the d.r. response they alluded to it the fact they tried to mitigate some of the noise with sound panels, especially on the back, adjacent to a residence that is not closed. unfortunately, i am on the front, so i don't even get sound panels. i get an open front that blasts noise right into my house. i think what is important consider it is the configuration of this. it is raised and is kind of and at the theater a fact, projecting noise up and out. -- is raised and it is kind of an amphitheater effect. it got so loud at one point that i thought i had to figure out. i went out and bought a sound

meter recorder, and this list taken and i submitted a declaration in the original package from the window of my third floor window and it measured over 83 decibels. this was with only one of the by full doors open. -- one of the bifold doors open. i took a recording. this is what is like in my house with the doors open. [noisy chattering] that was on a saturday morning, and i don't think there is any mitigation that can be done, especially on this

establishment, that could eliminate that noise or allow me to stay in my home with any kind of quality of life. thank you very much. vice president olague: jerry, followed by david, and anne. >> i am the creator and owner of my residence across the street from brickyard. i am pro-business, as a business owner, and i am pro- neighborhood. as a business owner and a resident for 41 years, i have been witness to many changes on the street. what sustains us on union street has been its uniqueness and quality. this proposed change of use from an enclosed sun room to an open patio on a raised deck is not a good change. in this case, because this specific patio configuration

becomes a magnified effect of 3000-plus square feet sports bar sound at, and it really does cranked up. which severely impacts the area with disturbing noise. no matter what sound panels are applied. there is no one real way to control this with an open front. and allowing the use of this open front will not only diminish the quality of our life but also diminish, in the long run, the attraction of our unique area. we have invested heavily in this area. and business in, and the long run for san francisco. the solution is to replace the enclosed sun room that was taken away. thank you. vice president olague: thank

you. if i called your name, feel free to come to the mike. >> i am david. every sound engineer knows how to cawnpore sound -- contour sound. you flank it with sound material. it is not much different than a megaphone. this is pretty much what we have at 1787 union street. it could not be designed any better as a projection sound stage. as a practical demonstration of what the former glass enclosure did for this structure, i brought along a piece of 1/4 inch plate glass and a megaphone and i like to explain how this works. commissioner sugaya: hold on,

why not turn that off? go ahead. >> i am sure most of you could hear me. i am not speaking in the microphone at all. [inaudible] and that is how it works. any questions? vice president olague: not yet. >> that is a hard act to follow. my name is anne, and i live at

1792 union street. i'm here to tell you why i am opposed to the applicant's having an open patio directly across from my home. the brickyard is not a fine dining establishment, it is a sports bar. everybody who lives here knows it and the crowd that frequents it knows it. i have nothing against if sports bars. i actually enjoy going to them. i have an issue with the fact it is now in my house and in my home 24/7. noise from the establishment currently, without the open patio, is bad. especially when there is a sporting event. i cannot even have a conference call at the front of my house because the microphone picks up the noises from the crowds. the noise is not limited to special events, like world cup games, giant playoffs, or other

special events in the city. it is just there with any sporting event. i would like to invite you over to my home on a sunday morning so you could experience it for yourself. you will quickly understand why the neighbors and myself are opposed to this. i have already relocated my room from the front of the house to the back of the house because of the noise at night, and if they are allowed an open patio, there will not be anywhere in my home where i will be able to get any peace and quiet. if the applicant's requests for the open patio, it would make the situation at my home unbearable and i would ask that you please refuse their application to have an open patio in the residence. this is where i live, sleep, and work, and haven't opened party back across the street from my house -- and having an open party deck across the street

from my house would drastically reduce my quality of life. vice president olague: next speakers? >> good evening. i am joanne hamilton. my husband and i have owned in our home on the tbs street for 26 years. -- on octavia street for 26 years. we have raised our families here and frequent the many restaurants. however, living one half block away, have serious concerns regarding the permit request to legalize the second story of the brickyard. i hesitate every time i need to walk by because i find the elevation of the deck above my head, basically over the sidewalk, to be psychologically intimidating. there is no set back for this deck. it sits right on the property line. the floor is 5 feet 5 inches

above the sidewalk. the low wall and opened rail around it is not very high. one dropped class, bottle, or plate of food could do serious injury to anyone passing on the sidewalk below, not to mention serious harm to where brickyard patron. if they have very high bar tables outside as they have in the rest of the bar area, which is adjacent to the bar, there could be serious problems for a passerby on the sidewalk below. i did not believe that the proposed flower boxes will remedy this situation. it is this the sidewalk environment the city hopes to achieve with a better streets plan? it does not promote pedestrian priorities with this invasion of the public ground. we have a unique situation here. there is no other eating or drinking establishments in the union street mcd that has a

second story. i feel there needs to be some kind of barrier, preferably a wall to protect pedestrians below as well as patrons of the bar. this would also help protect the neighborhood from some of the noise generated by the bar, especially if they have entertainment, which i think they have planned for the future. please consider this issue of public safety and require the brickyard to put back the closure that was there before, or at least find another way to protect people passing below. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, i am bob, president of the golden gate valley neighborhood associations and a resident in the union street. over 30 years. if you approve the youdeck -- if

you approve the elevated deck as proposed, you will create a nuisance that was not there before and expose the city to liability. doesn't your approval of a project it presently warrants safety, and what did this make san francisco the brickyard's deep pocket partner in some way? the manifest safety defects of the elevated deck, which cannot be disguised by planter boxes, the wall is too short to stop things from flying over or other bad things from happening. some personal injury lawyer is going to get a nice fat settlement against the city when the inevitable occurs. the crab shack has the right sort of outdoor activity area for union street. it is ground level, facing

commercial buildings, in front of a totally enclosed restaurant. at the brickyard, which has 130 patrons inside during a sound test last december, need alfresco dining to compete? it is a full-service restaurant with hard liquor bar. it is not competing with pizza shops or the dance club, but the likes of osha and the blue light. another restaurant has a glass in ceiling with sliding panels, which to procure has dismissed out of hand. don't let anybody tell you that the brickyard cannot make use of sidewalk tables and chairs, because servers and bussers would have to go up and down the side stairs.

this provides a clear and easy path along the sidewalks to tables on union street. let me close by noting that the sound tested took in december showed, yes, if you got people with a big crowd inside, you have to keep the doors closed because that is what keeps the sound from pouring out into the neighborhood. thank you very much. vice president olague: thank you. i>> good evening, commissioners. i am serena, longtime member of the golden gate valley neighborhood association board of directors and i am here to speak from a slightly different perspective. golden gate valley failed in its repeated efforts to bring the immediate neighbors and the building abc license owner to its table. the former came off and the latter ignored all appeals,

sending young men who confessed they had no real authority to negotiate. this seeming high handedness was very evident in the decision to demolish part of the structure without a permit, leading to the suspicion that so-called expediters encouraged such scofflaw come up with the wicked assurance that if you tear it down, they will approve it after the fact. next came the curious version of community outreach in the form of something called union street in richmond association credit to the first meeting at which at the brickyard i received an e-mail invitation, only later did refused entry, the first in a very long line. i told the man who kept repeating it was a private party that i had previously lived on octavia above union and had lived a quarter century just a

block north of union and felt entitled to be considered an interested party in the welfare of the street, but was nevertheless shown the door. as an inveterate night al, i can attest to the dramatic increase this past year and drunken foul mouthed language at our closing time, to the point where i no longer feel safe opening my front door and asking these raucous folks to please quiet down. i like to close with a word to the individuals to advise those of us who find the charming and truck and rowdy, but to move somewhere else. you come to drink and our neighborhood because it looks charming and feel safe. if the residents are chased away, hoodie believe will put the time, money, and effort into maintaining the neighborhoods high quality of life? thank you very much. vice president olague: thank you. jack, mark, melinda, and donna.

>> good evening, commissioners. i am jack. i have lived in the neighborhood often bill on for 40 years, and we have lived on octavia street the past 22 years. i'd like to address the proposed open patio and its impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood. the elevated deck has been in close more than 30 years and was used that way by two former long-term business. each occupy the space more than 10 years and were apparently profitable with the deck and closed. it and open deck is not essential to the business model. essential to the business model. it should bring as much revenue