that the bar is 3600 square feet and noisy. we have heard over and over again how noisy it is. it seems to me that the mitigation offered was not sufficient. commissioner peterson: i think i stated before that san francisco and its great offering of businesses with outdoor seating, which i parsley and joy, and i like businesses that do that, -- which i personally enjoy, and i like businesses that do that, but i agree the mitigation measures are not sufficient, as well. at the same time, and i think going back to the history of how the deck came into being, it

remains problematic and sort of taints the overall process, really, and that is what we have to look out for, is this process. that is what we have to look out for, and that the notwithstanding my own personal enjoyment of outdoor space, and air and whatever in an entertaining space, i think we need to uphold the concerns of the community here, and we heard it loud and clear. i do not think we can rely on that without more.

we have not even reviewed the documents. i do not think we can use that for any basis. we are not going to see a good outcome even if we were to try to implement a compromise. at least, me presley, maybe not commissioner fung, but i am concerned that if we try to proceed with things as they are or even with proposal a and proposal b, it will not work, so my idea is to revoke the permit. president goh: i also want to

say that i appreciate the engineer. , saying across the street, it sounded like the sound was within five or eight decibels of the limits, so it is very, very close, and then given all of the parameters, speaking about the sound we heard tonight with just one door open, it did sound like a violation to him, so i think that testimony is useful. are there other comments? vice president garcia: not to be argumentative with you by any means, madam but president, but i think one of the criteria that was brought up was that the complainant's window was open. president goh: she said it was open, right. vice president garcia: go ahead. commissioner fung: i am prepared

to make a motion. vice president garcia: i was going to make a motion. if another person would agree, then the permit would be upheld, and i want to place conditions beyond what was placed on it. one would be to a for all conditions placed on this permit by the planning department, and i also want to suggest that option a be put in place, and i am going to move that this permit be upheld. president goh: vice president garcia, another way to do it would be to allow commissioner fung to make his motion. vice president garcia: i really do not care. the one vote that moots his, and then we have to go upon the process of placing conditions on the permit. if this fails, there is no need

for anything else either. director goldstein: i would say that one of these might conflict with what you are suggesting, which is the first one. the firm is planning commission condition is about the doors remain closed, one remaining open, and then the other two remaining open if weather permits. which seems to conflict. vice president garcia: thank you for bringing that up. i think condition a is more stringent than that, so i would replace the first condition with this condition. director goldstein: ok. commissioner hwang: 4 point of clarification, are you suggesting that proposal a the condition? vice president garcia: yes. commissioner hwang: so no hinge on the door. vice president garcia: i would

absolutely entertain that. commissioner hwang: i am just asking if that was part of your condition. i am not adding to it, just asking. vice president garcia: whether it was going to be permanently closed and work, or some device on the door to ascertain, or make certain rather that it is closed as much as possible. commissioner fung: commissioners, adding conditions requires four votes. vice president garcia: true. president goh: that is why i suggested may be entertaining commissioner fung's motion. vice president garcia: then i'd agree with you. commissioner fung: i would like to move to revoke the permit.

secretary pacheco: so we have a motion from commissioner fung to revoke the permit. director goldstein: on the basis that it does not adequately address the noise affecting the neighbors? ok. secretary pacheco: to revoke its permit on the basis that the neighbors' noise concerns are not adequately addressed. on that motion to revoke, president goh, vice president garcia, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang. thank you. the vote is 3-2 to revoke the permit. the city charter requires four votes to overturn any department item, so without

motion, this would be upheld as is with no new conditions. vice president garcia: the motion would be what was discussed earlier, with the exception of a first condition, which i do not have in front of me, from the planning department, and requiring, and i would ask even though he is against having this permit go forward, i would ask commissioner fung, who is an architect, to say which door, even though it may not be effective, which door would be the most effective. which type of door. commissioner fung: a solid door. vice president garcia: how would it open and close? commissioner fung: you know, i am sure that the bar and restaurant operation would like

a door that operates, a double acting door, one that swings both ways. the problem with the those is that the type of hardware for the self closing on that is very limited, in terms of just being a combination hinge and closer, and those are very weak and how they'd use the door. president goh: commissioner fung, what about the idea that was raised about a vestibule door? the two-sided door, a door that has some space in between it, once it opens. commissioner fung: that is creating a vestibule, and in that case, it acts as a sound track. i think they use them in the zoo, do they not? commissioner fung: i do not

know. commissioner garcia's motion. vice president garcia: i think that would take space from inside the bar. i do not know how much of the concern is that. how about the handicapped doors, where you press a button to enter or go out. commissioner fung: those only open in one direction. vice president garcia: i understand that, but you could still press from each side to have it open in one direction. commissioner fung: those also close very slowly. the longer the door stays open, the more there will be potential noise problems.

if -- if you would, commissioner garcia, accept the modification of condition one, to the point where one door is operable -- vice president garcia: which sorta has some aspect of

compromise a. commissioner fung: yes, and that door whenever a closer built into it which is adjustable to the point -- there are certain codes related to the pressure, the resistance that a door has an opening and closing. and i would recommend then that the door that is most westerly be that operable door, with self closers, with it is in a double acting position or not. vice president garcia: and could replace some sort of restriction such that -- it would be so hard to enforce, but it will still have the language

of their, maybe a notice of special restriction or something, that when people are not coming in and out of that door, that door is to be closed, and -- commissioner fung: we did state that if there is no hold-open device on it. vice president garcia: you are not allowed to propping open. do you need greater clarification for the motion, victor? mr. pacheco? director goldstein: i just want to make sure that the department of building inspection and understand that as far as the self closing door and hinges, they are the ones to be enforcing that, so i just want to make sure that they'll understand what it is that would be required. vice president garcia: commissioner fung, i do not want to put words in his mouth. these are apparently

pressurized, so you can vary the rate at which they close. >> department of building inspection. there are several requirements for doors, depending on what purpose they serve. there is maximum and minimum force, and depending on the location of the door, it may be self closing or automatic closing. those are generally terms that we use for fire doors, off and just for clarification, it closes upon activation of a smoke detector or alarm. the self closing door is normally closed, and it would close automatically, so it is in a normally closed position, and then they have the hardware. and just to clarify, a double at the door, which will swing in 180 degrees, we see them a lot in restaurants, but there is a limitation with a certain occupant load, like around 150 or something, for safety.

director goldstein: so just to restate this, to uphold a permit and that the planning department conditions remain in effect except for item a, that the permit holders proposal a in the brief most recently submitted, dated september 15, be implemented, and that is that the most westerly door be the offer will door and be home with self closing hinges. is that accurate? commissioner fung: yes. director goldstein: -- president goh: director goldstein, i do not have -- director goldstein: i can provide you with a copy of that. commissioner hwang: the last page.

president goh: i have got it. on the front. president goh: and then, item d, the patio door would close at 10:00 p.m., and the bifold doors shall remain fully closed, and that should include the door we are speaking about now. right? vice president garcia: yes, i cannot find those conditions. do you want to just read them?

does any other commissioner want to review that? president goh: would you like made it -- like me to read them? i can read them into the record, if you want. vice president garcia: does anybody want that? commissioner fung: i think in your motion, that there is one operable door, so wherever there is reference to multiple bifold doors, that would be modified. vice president garcia: right. president goh: i think that is in a, because it talks about the open door, but i think that item d is inconsistent with your motion. vice president garcia: yes, so we would just strike the second sentence of d. secretary pacheco: is the board ordering the sealing of these

doors? commissioner fung: permanently shut. vice president garcia: i am glad we are doing this. i think at some point in these various hearings we have had on this issue, item h, commissioners, has language to do with the liaison office, and i think at some point, supervisor farrell's office offer to be that liaison. i am sure they are not going to want to hear from -- without putting a lot of pressure on the brickyard and the gentleman, so if we can incorporate some type of language that would incorporate having that liaison office person being from supervisor farrell's office? they have already said they would do that. director goldstein: i do not

know if we have the authority to do that. vice president garcia: then i will leave it to the good faith of the gentleman. director goldstein: you can put it there that there be such a person. commissioner fung: it is already in there. vice president garcia: i always had a problem with that. director goldstein: it could be someone other than that person. vice president garcia: without specifying that it could be somebody in commissioner farrell"s office. ok, someone other than any owner of the brickyard president goh: -- of the brickyard. president goh: i have a

question. what happens if the door is left open? what is it going to be? mr. sanchez, do you have any thoughts? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. any violations better authorized in required by this board would be a violation, and we would do our best to enforce that, including issuing notices of violation and penalty, which could then be appealed back to this board. president goh: we started this evening in public comment with somebody who claimed that a condition of this commission was violated. ok. vice president garcia: and before the roll was called on the motion, i do not know exactly how to do this, but i think we have done things like this before. i would request that if it has not already been done so that

any violations in the past that should have resulted in a fine to the brickyard be looked into and strictly enforced. been like having started the debt without profit permitting. i am sure they are the have taken care of that, but just to be sure. director goldstein: commissioners, do you need the motion restated? president goh: yes, please. director goldstein: i believe the motion is to uphold a permit on the condition that the planning department conditions of approval be upheld except for item a and the second sentence of item d, that the permit holder's pose of a, in his brief from september 15, 2 delfín 11, be implemented, and that the westernmost door be operable door and hong with self closing hinges, and then finally, the

person be someone other than the owner of the brickyard or an owner of the brickyard -- september 15, 2007. my apologies. planning commission. call the roll. secretary pacheco: on that motion with all of the conditions as read into the record, and it was commissioner fung's motion -- vice president garcia's motion, on that motion, commissioner fung, president goh, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang, and thinking. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with all of those conditions. director goldstein: thank you. president goh, there is no

further business. president goh: we are adjourned. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method.

we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of

members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is

designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once.

also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their

first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c