to reduce impact on the other buildings uphill, that for those reasons it complied with the residential design guidelines. these are other photos of the edition in question. once again, this picture over here is the existing configuration. to the right is the proposed. there is a little more massing coming out at this level, and at the ground-floor the building is coming out. what he cannot see and this picture is it is coming out here. ionce again, another rearview shot. this one explains how far the building is set back from the shared property line of the uphill building. you can see the massing is stacked against that building. the other aspect of this is the

roof deck, shown here. the residential design guidelines did not really express roof decks. they tend to be a very common feature. at any elevated deck it would pose the kind of impact that the d.r. requestor is concerned about, which is privacy and noise impact to adjacent properties. for these reasons, the department is supporting the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any comments or questions you may have. vice president olague: and now we will take up the issue of continuance. if they could speak to the reasons why at this time. >> we are requesting a

continuance for three reasons. the first reason is not all commissioners are present. this is a huge commitment of time and effort and we have had to come back for all commissioners to be present. we did not know that we were going to be missing one commissioner until friday, so we would like that to be kept in mind because it is involved here. on the sponsors presentation, this specific images that might just referenced are not correct. we did not receive this packet until friday. they are incorrect on two fairly serious issues. it would be misleading if you read this in advance and studied the images. you would be misled by these

images, thinking that there is not as much of an impact. i am just going to explain to you what i mean specifically. vice president olague: i am sorry, if he could limit their comments to the continuance. i>> i was told we received incorrect information from the project sponsors. you have received as commissioners incorrect information on the adjacent properties, and that is one of the reasons for continuance. did you want me to point that out? vice president olague: no, that is enough information. >> finally, we had requested the d.r. to mediate, we requested this as soon after the 311 notice was filed. we set up one date.

and had to be rescheduled because of the world series. aanother date was scheduled and that was canceled because of family health issues. no further mediation was set up again. we contacted the project sponsor and michael smith to find out when mediation was god be rescheduled. we did that friday. michael smith said the city now basically eliminating the mediation process. we found this out on friday. as soon as he sent this be met paul -- as soon as he sent this e-mail eliminating the mediation, the product sponsors said they did not want to mediate. this from my perspective is not something that we expected to happen. we expected mediation. we wanted to work it out. it would not want that part of the process withheld from us. so i think it is something we should take up from a continuing perspective because we have not get our fair share of the process, we believe. vice president olague: thank

you. is there anyone else in the public would like to speak to the issues of continuance? did the project sponsor want to respond? >> thank you, good evening, commissioners. in terms of this continuance request only, we all deal every week with variations in commissioners calendars. we always deal with short commission's occasionally. a case earlier tonight had to duel with a quorum of five. i don't think that has ever bent the basis for continuing a case. if our inadequacies or incorrect information presented to the commission, that is sound basis for discretionary review, which is clearly what they should be

here to present to you if there are mistakes in the documentation, and we are prepared to respond to them. finally, the question of mediation. this project was first discussed with neighbors in december of 2008. this will be the fifth public hearing that we have attended about this horizontal addition. we have a engaged in very, very protracted negotiations and discussions. nothing more was going to come out of the mediation session. imy client has social anxiety disorder and direct confrontations are very difficult, especially dealing with family health crisis the last four months. his dad is in intensive care right now as we speak. it is not possible for him to sit down and mediate something that we feel quite confident we would not have made any progress with. we have made many changes to

this project, as you will hear during our presentations, but the mediation process was not going to derive irresolution. so i think it is time to hear the case finally. we are all here, it is late, let's get it on. thank you. vice president olague: are there any other additional comments on the continuance? any other d.r. requestors want to speak to it? public, disclosed. commissioners? -- public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner borden: i was just going to ask mr. smith if he would want to speak to what requirements we have with mediation on projects. i did not think that was a requirement for cases. >> it is not a requirement, but we encourage sponsors to mediate. we think that is very helpful, especially early on in the process.

as was said, this has been going on over two years. at one point, when the variance was outstanding, the zoning administrator and i tried to mediate between the sides, and that did not work. they essentially met at 2 canfor among themselves and came back with what they were willing to accept, and that was it. -- day essentially met to good for among themselves. that was not a real mediation. the sponsor was not at that table. they said that is what we are willing to accept. that is fine, and most recently i have not been included on any of the mediation's. i just got the e-mail last week for a request to continue to mediate. i felt like that had come at the 11th-hour, so i expressed the department's sentiment on that request, but i forwarded it on to the project sponsor to with the question of whether or not

he was willing to participate in mediation. commissioner borden: i mean, we cannot force people to mediate. that, unfortunately, would never be basis for continuance, but maybe you could speak to the issue of the plant and accuracy? vice president olague: yeah, that is what i was concerned about, and they also just said they received plan friday. >> receiving the plans friday is normal procedure because the information is sent to the public and stakeholders at the same time they are sent to the commission. the only way they would have received it earlier is if they came in to pick them up in person, but i personally mailed out all the information on thursday and would have received them friday or saturday. as far as the accuracy of the plan, that has never been brought to my attention. it was never mentioned in the e-

mail as a reason for the continuance request. i am just finding that out today. in reviewing the drawings, they appear accurate to me. vice president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am interested in hearing it tonight for the following reasons. we went for long times in the last year with five commissioners, and then we went even logger with six commissioners that were actually part of the commission. that is sort of what happens from week to week. there are times when we did not have a full commission, and more often than not somebody is not here. as for is the issue of the accuracy, as was pointed out, that would be part of the discussion of the discretionary review and would be up to the commission to decide if there are inaccuracies in the plan.

i think mr. smith answered the noticing thing, so i am fine with hearing it tonight. commissioner sugaya: i just have a question for the d.r. request or. without getting into the details, what is it that we would receive from the d.r. requestors if we were to continue the item? >> what would you receive from us? commissioner sugaya: other than if we go ahead with the hearing tonight, there will be public testimony and, obviously, you will tell us the plans are inaccurate and the drawings are inaccurate. if we continue the item, do you plan on having someone -- yourselves, i don't know who --

present alternate drawings? that show what the situation, as you see it, is? >> we would go to the project sponsors and have them correct the images. michael just presented. you'll have looked at those and come here tonight with a bias in one direction with the result of seeing the images. we do not feel that is fair because the images are not accurate. commissioner sugaya: so you had planned on going back to the project architect? >> yeah. commissioner sugaya: okay, thank you. vice president olague: is there a motion for continuance? commissioner sugaya: i will move to continue. vice president olague: to what date? commissioner sugaya: i am assuming one week would probably not be enough. it probably february 3 is

available. i don't care, i don't care whenever it is continue to, just so that everyone understands that if there are these discrepancies, but we expect those drawings and renderings and what not will be corrected and brought back to us. vice president olague: yeah, and we will not have a full commission that date either, but it is never based on that. the commissioner who will be absent is ok with us going 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 there is no one real way to control this with an open front.