you saw evidence of very serious problems. then i this permit application and let's figure out a way to go forward. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes . >> thank you. i did not know i have this opportunity. first and foremost, a lot of the examples that were shown before whether they were photos of people, those were anomalies. they are not a day-to-day business. it was opening, fleet week, world cup. looking back and reiterating

what mr. dufty said, we did not do everything right the first month. we are here to try to address those issues going forward the that we can coexist with all neighbors on the street. there are a couple of things i want to address. this is not an outdoor beer garden. it is not a party deck. it is seating for 12 people. all of the photos that you saw, those were taken on saturdays when we were very busy. and just a little bit more of the compromise out there right now. the panels themselves is a solution. it is just how much of it is open or closed at any given point in time. we have operated with those

doors fully closed and there has been no issue. there will not be an issue from the people outside. the systems that are in place right now, it will allow us as responsible operators to mitigate noise concerns going forward. >> thank you. that closes the public hearing. commissioner sugaya: here we go. ok. maybe i should recuse myself because i lived directly across the street from a bar. i have a question of the supporters of the project sponsor. how many of you lives directly across the street from a bar? you liked it? you loved the noise coming out

of it? if there were? >> [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: i'm such an old guy, i happen to be home at night. we are not engaged in a conversation. there is no more public comment. i wanted a show of hands. we had a lot of trouble with this bar and now is quiet. i hope that is what the project sponsor is trying to do in this case. i think the outdoor seating is fine. it is a management issue because i happen to be home. you are all out having fun during the same time that things are noisy for me.

we had to work with them and everything has been pretty good for the last 56 years. there is a new owner that came in and talked to the association and give us the cellphone number and everything else. i am kind of hoping the same thing will happen here. i know that there was some information about these doors, when they are closed, they are pretty sound proof? having been - -have -- have they been rated in any way? >> i do not of the manufacturers' tax. >> i think it is basically the noise issue. i don't have problems with the outside and the number of people seems reasonable.

from want the people are saying, it is the noise transmission that takes place. if we could have some idea of when it is closed? usually you serve through a panel door and people go in and out. >> exactly. bear with me, i'm sorry. i know that part of the original building permits was that this

had to have specific -- i am not sure what that is. it related to the sound transition through the windows. basically, the proposal being that the way the system works is that it opens from this side. one panel can open or three panels can open. basically, from an access standpoint, we have volunteered to have the panels where it is anchored closed at all times. there is also the weather. if it is cold, we are not having the doors open. at a minimum, we would need the access panel open. commissioner sugaya: are you in

agreement with the conditions? >> yes. >commissioner antonini: like commissioner sugaya, i'm older, too. i remember how it was in the 70's on union street. a lot of these places did not have the outdoor seating, but they might as well have because the crowds were so big that night. a thing they have done a wonderful job there. i have been there a number of times and they have put together a much nicer establishment. the issue before us is the situation with the patio and the noise. walking up the street frequently from my office almost every day, i can tell you i don't see

any problem. most of the time that night, i hardly see anything. you're dealing with more activity on weekends. it seems to me that the sponsors have done a good job of mitigating the noise impact from what i can tell going along saturday afternoon and things like that when it is football time. i like the conditions that the staff has suggested. i'd think they will do a lot to cut down the noise. a lot of the conditions that she brought up, some of them are part of the conditions. the limit it to 12 people. closing at 10:00 p.m.. closing the patio doors. one thing i would mention is putting the planter boxes there. make sure that the railing is high enough and safe enough that

no one could drop a glass over the top of it. you really have to think about coming up a little higher with that making it virtually impossible for anyone to knock anything off. if you do that, it will take care of one concern i heard that was mentioned that could be a problem. and by bringing that up a little bit more, i am not saying you have to make it solid. i think it might tend to push some of the noise up rather than out. i am happy with the conditions, and i see there are other commissioners that want to make some comments. i am happy to approve this with the staff recommendations. commissioner borden: i became aware of the brickyard situation before it opened. there was a mistake made.

they submitted the plans to remove the sun room. the supervisor's office called me. the issue was they were approved to remove the sun room. and there should have been notification for that. it started things off on the wrong foot. i don't believe it was made a maliciously. from my interactions with the project sponsor, and union street festival, everyone was on union street forever. it is extremely loud, noisy, absolute insanity. because they were not able to use the patio, the doors were open and there was a line, a lot

of people. i can say that the lines that represent the picture are really an anomaly of events. the truth is, every restaurant is the same way. the first month, it is of the charges. there is lots of noise. once the place is not new any more, it is not as crazy as it was at the very beginning. the project sponsored did not anticipate the crowd. the rally weren't anticipating the noise emanating from the fact that they are not serving food. people would be seated on the patio, dining.

it is a completely different experience requiring tables and chairs and people sitting outside dining. whereas right now, people are standing up next to the windows. that is what i want to say. i live in the neighborhood and i see this. because of this misunderstanding, the entire project got off on the wrong foot. it was really unfortunate because i was hoping there would have been a way to work, for the neighbors and a project sponsored to work better to come to some sort of way to work together. i was there in the beginning and i understand that things started off on the wrong foot. it is often hard to overcome that circumstance. i used to go to bayside. it was my place of choice for

super bowl sunday. it was actually ugly and tacky. i thought the sun room portion was extraordinarily ugly. they don't have any outdoor seating. walk by the bus stop and it is pretty noisy. these people live close to the brickyard, so it is less of a concern for them. when you look at where the peace periods are, it is mostly on the weekends. and then there are not a whole lot of -- not necessarily everybody is going to every basketball game. it is different because of the number of games there is the world cup -- the number of games.

the world cup happens once every four years. it is in some ways not good preparation for what is good to be 10 times a year when it will be off the charts traffic there. if we listen to the project's sponsors average nightly and daily numbers, these are not numbers that should be generating huge amounts of noise. to that point, i think the conditions here -- i think turning it into a dining patio, different than the scenario in has been today, is going to help with the noise comes -- noise concerns the members have. i would move to take the project with the recommendations staff has made. i also ask the condition that the project sponsors provide a cell phone number to the neighbors to make sure there is a point of contact when there are concerns. i am happy if people want to talk about -- maybe we can have

a report back in the year that is a staff report from ms. woods to hear about how things went so that neighbors would know that there is a reason for them to be compliant. we are asking them how things went over the course of the year. i think through that process it can be a very fair way to kind of work together. that is my motion. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: i am not quite there yet. i would like to have the conditions addressed a little bit more, other issues such as with an open patio to the sidewalk that attention to sidewalk cleanliness, a community liaison with not just a phone number but the ability to be in communication with each other. this is a very unusual situation on union street. it is a primarily commercial street. this is partially professional

offices, but an equal amount of residence. these are mostly older businesses. it is quite noisy. it always has been quite noisy, because it is partially in a valley with the hill rising beyond it. i would find a way that the owners of the restaurant become better neighbors too many people who do not have -- neighbors to many people who do not have particularly good feelings about them. we try to encourage and the ability to come to an agreement prior to showing up here would be preferable. i want to ask a community liaison. i want to have particular attention to the open patio, that there is no additional accumulation of stuff on the sidewalk. i do not want to see the patio becoming a place where people smoke, partially because they think it is outside. this might be all commonly

understood, but i would like to have it spelled out. something which almost takes over the front of the building -- i want to have conditions where we mediate between the people living there, having professional offices, and operating a restaurant. with the event, i do not have anything against. there is more noise. there is more excitement. it is more fun. there is more whatever. that is part of that type of establishment. for that reason, i think we should be particularly putting sensitivity conditions here by which we also recognize where is. in terms of locations of street, the hill -- i would like to have a certain sensitivity reminder

in these conditions. commissioner borden: as the maker of the motion, to say that smoking should not be happening -- i think that is california law, but we can add that. just because something is happening on the patio -- people are on the patio for the purpose of dining. we can add that. commissioner antonini: i am fine with that. i think the business with the community liaisons' is understood as well. commissioner sugaya: i was going to get into some details, but i will skip it. >> are you sure? commissioner sugaya: no. >> on the motion, commissioners, to take dr and include the condition that the project sponsor provide a liaison and

that the patio be limited for dining purposes only. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. this brings us to item 18, 4916 ortega street. a request for discretionary review. -- for 916 artistry. a request for discretionary review -- 916 ortega street. a request for discretionary review.

commissioner sugaya: i would like a progress report for these kinds of things. vice president olague: should we take a recess? commissioner moore: let's just run with it. >> good evening, planning commission. i am the southwest team leader. we request discretionary review of a building proposing construction of a third story the vertical addition and passat alteration. the property is located at 916 ortega street in the outer sunset neighborhood. two discretionary reviews were filed, one by leonard kachn, and

one by tracy thompson. they believe that the vertical addition does not respect the scale of adjacent buildings and that the horizontal addition encroaches into the open space, creating a boxed in feeling, and that the report additional create privacy impacts on neighbors. the residential design team has reviewed the project. we find it to be on balance and consistent with the general plan and design guidelines. we do not find a project to contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. we of classified the project as an abbreviated dr for the following reasons. it makes alterations inappropriate manner. it retains the pattern along the laterally spoke -- laterally sloping blocke three.

-- sloping block. the rear addition extends 6 feet beyond the neighbor to the west at a two-story white with a setback. the addition extends 14 feet beyond the thdr requesting or's property, but it is stepped interest. we find is appropriate with the use of setbacks on the upper floors. some loss of privacy to existing neighbors is acceptable for an addition in a dense urban environment. it will not have unusual impact on neighbors. the department has not received any additional comments regarding the project. under pending dr reform legislation, it would not be referred to you. the department recommends you do

not take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes the presentation. vice president olague: thank you. dr requestors -- whatever order you want to go in. my name is leonard pond -- >> mining is leonard pond -- >> my name is leonard pond. i had two concerns with this proposal. one is to do with the setback. the project plan currently reflects a front setback 10 inches, based on the set back of the adjoining properties at 924 ortega street and 908 ortega street. the street level average setback

is 10 feet. on the other adjoining property, there is an average third level setback of poor 0.5 feet. these figures are documented in the department's street planning and construction drawings, which i can submit for your review. i am requesting that the front setbacks for the proposed project be determined based on true setback figures, as per planning code section 132. my other concern relates to the proposed rare word addition in the renovation. the multi-level real extension will encroach into the existing mid-block open space. the existing structures in the southeast corner of our block that surround my rear yard --

this results in my open space being a three-sided open box, with the fourth side exposed only to the west. neighbors residing to the east utilize their rear yards to access the same mid-block open space. the project if first and second level rear extension will extend 14 feet. this reduction of access to the mid-block open space is 36%, a significant impact, contrary to what the planning and project agent have alleged. the residential design standards code sections 100 to to four and 136 specify to design the height of the building to be compatible with the existing building skill at the mid-block open space. rear yards provide open space for their residences to which

they are attached, and the collectively contribute to the mid-block open space that is visible to most residents. this visual open space can be a significant community advantage. and out of scale rear-your addition -- rear-yard addition can leave residents feeling cut off. we will indeed be affected if the construction of the rear extension is beyond the existing community structures. i have made myself available to discuss my concerns with the agent and the owner since the introduction of these plants in a meeting on the project promises may 6, 2008. i initiated an intake file with the community board with an option to discuss our differences and arrive at a mutual concordance. however, this file was closed

on november 30, 2010, after the final contract was made with the project agents, who declined participation in this mediation service. i live in an urban area and concessions can be made, hopefully with respect from all parties concerned. i have lived in this neighborhood as my primary residence for 27 years. i am aware that an edition may be needed for this building. i am in support of its proposed renovation. it would enhance my neighborhood's esthetics and property value. i am interested in solutions. in the past, the guidelines in sections meet neighborhood concerns. i request this dr the granted and i hope there will be an opportunity to explore design

modifications that will allow continued access to the mid- block open space, given the unusual configuration of existing structures. thank you for your time. vice president olague: second dr requestor? >> good evening. thanks for staying late. i filed my own separate dr because i felt that while an exceptional condition exists to affect the decision, this exceptional condition has not been addressed in the planning for the ortega street project. i want to show this picture. this indicates where my property is. when you look -- it looks like

the specter is taken -- this picture is taken at high noon on a very sunny day. you can see this darkened corner here. this is facing west. this darkened corner -- this is my house. this darken the corner -- darkened corner will be further in closed, as indicated, up to 36% of this area. you can see here that this area will be further in closed. i would like to clarify that i am not opposed to the plant in its entirety, but would like modifications to accommodate this exceptional, already claustrophobic corner lot, lot 205b,