the evening at about 10:00 tonight or even 8:00 at night, you did really high readings on noise pollution. anbar music is not lullabies, and that kind of solution is very hard for families to have in their ears during today and particularly at night. if there is some way of controlling the noise, it is not that we wan do not want the businesses to succeed. i want them to succeed as well, but they must keep the neighborhood all live as well, and property values are another question when you talk about noise pollution.

>> would you care to say your name? >> beverly, and i live on filbert st.. >> next speaker please. >> my office is across the street from the brickyard. againsi spoke before on how lout is, and i also heard some reports, and i want to say even their own measurements show that the noise level was high, and a dining experience for 10 people should not equal our discomfort. nobody is complaining about others. they are not our neighbors. if their neighbors wanted to complain, that is fine, but i know they went through proper

channels to get what is required to achieve outside seating. we are also part of the community, and they do not feel suppose should benefit from that. i think it is really nice that they want to share what is going on inside their car, but we would like to politely -- inside the bar, but we would like to politely decline having to listen to it. there is a photo from this past saturday, and that was very loud. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my name is jim connolly. i animal home owner and live on green street -- i am a home owner and live on greene street. this is my second appearance on

this particular issue. on listening to the testimony today, what struck me is i do not recognize ambient noise. i cannot identify ambient noise when i hear it. i could not tell you how many decibels i hear, but i certainly no loud noise when i hear it, and i would ask the board to think back to our last meeting on this issue and the dramatic down record things that i think caught all of us by surprise -- dramatic recordings i think, all of us by surprise. listen to that noise and know how much it is impacting in a negative way this community of homeowners. >> next speaker please. >> patricia.

what we have is the issue of the doors. this is of a one. -- a big one. i am suggesting the doors remain closed except one door in and out if they would like to use the patio. i do have concerns, and i thought about this really hard over the week, of people staring out fronts of buildings, not getting fines because of political pressure put on the planning department and the department of building inspection on this issue. people represent themselves as expediters not listed in analysts -- and the expediters list of the ethics commission, but they have done a great job on inside. it is a beautiful restaurant. noise is the issue.

my suggestion is to keep all the doors closed except for the one that swings in and out for the waiters and waitresses. there has to be a compromise, and the fact is when i hear that the day before a brief is supposed to be in, a meeting is called the day before they are supposed to be working hard on the brief common -- on the brief, it concerned me common -- it concerned me, and i believe some compromise has to happen during grosvenor -- has to happen. status quo cannot continue. otherwise, it will end up in court. it is up to you what you do. >> is there any other public comments in? seeing none, the matter is submitted.

>> i have a question of mr. sanchez. i am not saying it is as simple as coiling down to the issue. would you tell me, when something comes before the planning commission that noise is an issue, how you establish an ambient noise issues? does your department rely on the entertainment commission, or do you have something? >> the noise ordinance is contained in chapter 29 of the police code, and it establishes different agencies have different responsibilities, and it is spread across the department of public health, the department of public works, entertainment commission, the police department. when we received complaints relating to noise related to an issue such as this, we referred

to inspectors who have the appropriate the equipment to take measures to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance during -- noise ordinance. >> did anyone go into questions about how they established the basis? >> the questions that were not raised to my knowledge, we did only received this week a report from the appellants that contains the sound engineer report, so we have not had time to review that with the entertainment commission, since we came in i believe on monday, so we have not had time to confer with entertainment commission. the noise ordinance is a bright line. they are in violation of the noise ordinance. they say they are not in violation. if we receive future complaints,

they can go out again. we can have them investigate matters to ameliorate thought. >> the last question would have to do with commission staff. it had to do with the retractable awning, and that was based on recommendations by humanwhom? >> that was something that was developed by project sponsors and neighbors, so i different to the neighbors -- i defer to the neighbors on how it was developed. >> thank you, mr. smith.

>> this particular case brought some interest to me, so i walked around area on an evening when it was relatively busy, and the intent was not necessarily to be able to do this, but what was important to me was to go there. what was interesting for me was to see whether there were fluctuations in the number of people and also whether there

were corresponding fluctuations in the sound lendvel, and i foud there were fluctuations, and that only a little bit about the facility, the type of clientele, and what occurs there. the interesting thing about the technical analysis is that to a certain degree it has become a science. earlier in my career, it was not a science. it has become a more simple, and they can produce different types of recommendations, and it does not necessarily fly in all areas. i do not think the technical

analysis is all about important to the issues before us. the problem is that the noise code and people's perceptions are so different. what may be a sign of vibrancy to one person is different to another person, and that is going to vary tremendously. if we were to be dealing with some of the broader policy issues, that would be one thing. the charges dealing with this particular permit, which is not only dealing with demolition but

also the construction for the patio deck area. it is my opinion that given the fact that perception of sound is so different, it is incumbent upon business and the owner to confine all sounds within their building, and i think this patio will not do that. >> the commissioner stated the acoustics since he has been in business has improved, and it is disappointing debt -- disappointing that you want everyone to agree who is a scientist. how can you call it science if there is not reliability?

maybe they are all having the same answers. the way they choose to express about is different. it seems the science is all the loose, and i had hoped it would be straightforward, and everyone would say the ambient noise in this area, and there would be a range of times and a range of evenings. as to the merits of the case itself and the process, i was really disappointed that he had an opportunity to have involved his neighbors, not just to make them more comfortable, but to reach shot and have them understand he is aware that they are there, and the way he could have demonstrated that would be to have involved neighbors in

the process all along. he is coming out at such a time. he would later give a report that would be delivered in plenty of time to respond prior to this hearing. those kinds of things should have been done. i am sorry that did not happen. some measures came up that had to do with swinging doors, and if that turned out to be unnecessary, that is why we did not hear about it. if we did hear it was unseasonable economically to have done that, but when it gets down to the last analysis, what is important to me is the fact that when you read what comes out, you feel as though it was pretty carefully vetted. i did not know about any

improper influence or whether people are registered as permit expediters, but in terms of the people who looked at this, they came up with nine different measures having to do with mitigation, because they were aware of some of the issues, and there were things they thought were reasonable. i feel i do not have a choice but to place my trust with the entertainment commission to properly establish their own rules and things that exceed that by age decibels so we must rely on them to monitor the situation to try to keep a

vibrant business that is not to the detriment of that neighborhood. i intend to uphold the permit. >> i will go next. i put on the record earlier, but i will repeat that i watched the video of the last hearing, and i did hear the audio recording of the new ways zeroth -- of noise. i think it is one chance were the permit owner may be hurt by his own success. we hear the noise of people having a great time at the bar.

if people did not go to it, there would not be a noise problem. i noticed the commissioners were struggling with how to address the noise. it looked like a second floor deck. it was mention that we should consider the neighbors and quiet enjoyment of their homes. we have heard there are manuals -- heard there are many homes. we tried to look at it from the perspective, and we heard from the permit owners that they did not do that.

we also heard garcia mentioning that he was leaning to requiring them to a close it now and asking them to think about what mitigation measures, and the swinging door mentioned by a member of the public, and other mitigation efforts were discussed, and what we thought was to try to work together, and wouldn't it be nice if you came back and said, here are the mitigation measures we can live with, but instead what we heard is basically, we are not offering any mitigation measures. we are a successful business. we are busy, noisy, and isn't

that great? i am troubled by that. the neighbors do have a right to enjoy their homes. we saw the pictures of the babies. the babies have a right to do that. i would like to see something happen. close the deck, enclose it with class. -- glass. my response is not to uphold the permit as it stands. >> i would echo the disappointment of wanting to see the parties come together. it gave you some time, and i do think the way this process has

gone for the neighbors is not a good one, and i found a pretty persuasive the report of the appellant in pointing it out and referencing this noise ordinance. i am not an expert, but it would appear the given the response of the permit holders to the same question, i would put on a point in favor of the appellants, but i think the bigger picture is not about an -- is about not coming to this together in recognizing you have got serious problems, and it is not going to end here, and we were hoping the

some mitigation measures would be proposed cut would not kill you or your braiank, that would help the neighbors feel their concerns were addressed, and i do feel the experts' report speak to me, and i find morning and convincing the report of the appellants. >> are was going to make a motion. -- i was going to make a motion. i did notice the patio was operating more like a deatck, ad

what crossed my mind is similar, that the doors need to be closed earlier or closed. it is not operating as a simple patio. i do not think i am prepared to completely overturn what has been granted by the permit owners that there is anything we can do. >> i would remind that something has redone -- has been done, and it had to do with one door being opened in your your -- being opened. these issues have been addressed. i was very disappointed that

someone said the reason they did not want to do swinging doors. i still feel there is no reason to overturn this, and i would move that we of hold the planning department, -- we uphold the planning department, and to any to state the reason spellman -- do i need to stay the reasons hammond reaching the reasons? >> that is part of it. >> i wonder if before we call the roll on the motion, it looked like you had another comment to make.

>> i guess part of my thoughts on this is that some of those mitigation measures do not really help, and that is the problem i had with the permit itself. some of those measures are not substantial. >> did you have any you wanted to recommend? >> there could have been solutions. it is not up to me. they were asked to examine it, and they chose not to. it is a question of one way or

another. >> you want to call role then? >> would you like to make a motion? >> i am glad to make the motion. >> on the motion to uphold on the basis that it complies with the code. [calling votes] thank you. now the vote is 1-4 to uphold the permit. >> we need another motion. >> of least two votes are

required to uphold the permit by default. >> we do not need another motion. >> if there is no other motion, the permit would be upheld. >> a motion is required for the vote to secure your -- for the vote. >> the finding is to be adopted. >> when you are ready to call the roll on about, please. >> we have a motion. >> if i were to make a motion to continue, that would take president, and my reason to want to do this is that it is a viable issue, and i would ask

for a continuance to give the project sponsor one more opportunity to meet with neighbors and come up with a real mitigation measures. >> would you like a date certain amount -- would you like a date amazon -- a date? >> of the director have recommendations chairman -- does a director have recommendations? >> i would say the october 5 or 12th meeting. >> should we see if the parties are inclined to bowma? >> the question i asked by one of the commissioners is why have

a continuance if the parties are not inclined to continue to try to solve this problem in a way that is agreeable? >> if we offered to keep all of for you are pedals) keep one operating -- to keep the panels close and keep one operating. >> the basic question is do you feel as though you would benefit from a continuance to continue to work this out? >> the same question applies to you. >> i will defer to what the

board says. i just hope we can come to some mitigation. if you want to feel -- if you feel you want to give them an opportunity, i am ok with that. >> what changed you think regarding the permit holders just now? >> i will set aside my motion for the time being during the -- for the time being. >> is that a swinging door? >> otherwise, we are continuing for a few months.