and it will miraculously appear. thank you sfgov. >> my name is ann mckenzie and i've owned my home behind the brickyard for 37 years. aiai ask for a request of the e. and the noisy reaction to world sports events would disturb the neighborhood's two-three times a year. we know it is possible to broadcast from somewhere in the world 24/7. then there are the highlights. these are the core of the attraction and this is a sports bar and a very successful one. more often than not, there are

lines of people waiting to get in. this is like a living billboard. this property but has been vacant off and on for long amounts of time. i do not want to hear the clamor from the sports bar operation going into my home. the current environmental impact report focused on noise. this will provide the platform for solutions. thank you. >> apparently there will be a

major event in city hall and parking right out of city hall including a number of our colleagues cars need to be moved. those of you who are outside, if you can take a minute to make sure that your cars to not get towed. think you. -- thank-you. >> i have lived across the procured for 31 years. there has been a number of bars in this location. they have all had an enclosure which contained noise and we all coexisted. the issue we are facing now is extreme noise which the planning department is not properly addressing. the elevated deck is what causes

the noise to blast out into homes and neighborhoods. this is a sports bar that attracts large crowds on a regular basis. that is to be expected. the problem is that an open front, an elevated track, the noise is blasts right out at the entire community with nothing to block it. as you can see, this happens at all times of the day and evening. they are frequent and real and have a tremendous impact on our neighborhoods and homes. some of which are less than 75 feet away. the noise will be much worse if the open front deck is approved. i request that the city does analysis of the true conditions of this project to find a

measure to deal with the serious noise impact. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i own the property directly across from the brickyard. my statement is very simple. the tenants who live in my building are disturbed by the noise. it is my responsibility to provide a home for them in which to live and that is being compromised. if the patio deck is left open, it will make it very hard for me to rent these apartments and also to keep my tenants happy and to provide them peaceful enjoyment of their home. that's it. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i live up the property from the brickyard. i have been there for 30 years. this is a wonderful neighborhood. i have been there for many years. at one point, they had a security company to disperse the crowds because it gets really rowdy. in the past year, the noise alone for our neighborhood has been verbally and tolerable. this goes on until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, starts in the afternoon, and i have had to get up and ask people to leave or are recall police because it was 4:00 in the morning. i cannot imagine with an open patio that the situation will

not be incredibly worse and i am here to ask that this possibility be reviewed and not allowed for the residence as well as the other businesses. people have had graffiti, they have had their flowers kick away. this is a situation that is actually more expensive than it has ever been. to allow the patio would be virtually intolerable. >> hello, my offices are directly across the brickyard.

this has been going on for almost a year. when the doors were opened, the noise was deafening. you could not work during the day. i cannot imagine how people live in their homes your under those conditions. even when the doors are closed, they were directed to do for the past nine months, i can hear when there's a chance for and my doors are closed. the management said that they have learned their lessons regarding the noise coming from their bark and they would change their ways. unfortunately, as you can see, their behavior has not changed at all. party bosses and large crowds are frequent attractions. some of these are from just a

few weeks ago. this shows that there be a serious noise problem if the dax opened up. some of these are from 9:00 a.m., this is from 9:00 p.m.. supporters are about to tell you that the neighborhood is and the business, we don't like small businesses, and that we just want to shut down their bark, which is not true at all. there has been a bar there for many years and there was never any noise problems like this. when it was requested at the close the doors, they would do it. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i remember it and neighbor saying that the problem with union street is all false. that is what we are dealing with. there is a drinker that police referred to as in title. sports bars cater to them. the police know that they heard the city. -- hurt the city. the promoter had to agree to remove the few cartons from this year's fair. for the first time, there will be no all all and no beer gardens. alcohol was such a problem that it was banned this year. there is a long history of alcohol cause some problems in the neighborhoods. the brickyard removed the front part of their building without a permit to illegally construct an

elevated deck. this is 75 feet from homes across union street. i am told that this is 77 feet long. do you think that the drinkers will contain their enthusiasm when the giants or the 49ers are in the final moments of their game? do you think they will consider their neighbors in closed patio doors? who is going to mantra that? the residence? the planning department sanctioned an uncontrollable situation for the neighborhood. that needs to be enclosed. noise would not be an issue. i asked you, supervisors, to force brickyard to meet the standards set for all of businesses in a neighborhood commercial district. we need a full environmental

impact. >> i tried to mediate this case and i would like to read what i have to say and i have some suggestions. this started off as an enclosed dining area without permits. new -- no repercussions. the planning department chose to ignore the extraordinary consequences of this act of removing portions of the building. this raises flags according to seek what -- according to ceqa. by removing the walls, it is likely that more noise will come

from the area. there is the likelihood of more sound. the very fact was simply ignored by the management of the planning department. in order to stop another lawsuit, please send this case back to planning and do a steady and modify the existing decision of the planning commission. because the applicant broke the planning commission's decision by having the doors open before the appeals time was over, the neighbor cannot trust the management of the brickyard to follow the rules and regulation of the planning and police department. the following decisions should be made by you. i would send it back up for it

sounds studies. the outdoor seating should remain only four are for only dining. -- only for outdoor only dining. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? ok, at this time we will go to the planning department for your presentation. >> to the afternoon -- good afternoon. i will speak to a couple of main points. this is the removal of a glass enclosure and the creation of an outdoor patio measuring approximately 144 square feet in size at the restaurant known as the brickyard. i would like to address the threshold for impact for noise.

will the project cause a significant permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project? i would like to reiterate that, a permanent increase. in our response to the appeal, a noise map from the city indicating that the ambient noise level is in the range of 70-74 decibels. noise tests were conducted by the entertainment commission, one was back on december 18th, with the doors closed. due to the heightened attention on the open or closed nature of

these stores, the planning department requested an additional test and that was conducted this past saturday. the tests showed the noise levels to be compliant with the city's noise ordinance and along the lines of the range of the ambient noise levels. this is with the doors opened. the worst-case scenario, no higher than the ambient noise levels already existing in the streets. the addition of the patio due to its small size, prescriptions on occupancy and hours of operation would not cause a significant increase in the conditions of

the site. the proposed project would not require additional and varmint to review. -- environmental review. ceqa does not allow mitigation and measures to be applied. this was meant to indicate that the commission has the ability to apply conditions of approval above and beyond levels necessary. the transcripts indicate that it was responsive to community concerns and required that some of them to close. they require the conditions that the patio doors are closed after 10:00 tonight.

although the terms impact and mitigation our terms under -- with specific meetings, they are used in general and planning and are not limited to use only in the ceqa context. additional conditions of approval go above and beyond what was required. the department conducted a thorough analysis of the project under the guidelines. it is importance to keep in mind that this is located in a neighborhood commercial zoning district. this is located along a street with existing high ambient noise levels. the entertainment commission has conducted readings and concluded that the project is operating with a noise ordinance levels.

although the noise impact determined was less than significant, the planning commission chose to adopt additional conditions of approval to address community concerns about noise. for reasons stated previously, the determination complies with the requirements and the project is a properly exempt from environmental review. the department recommends that the board uphold the categorical of invention and denied the appeal of the commission exemption. thank you. >> why don't we now hear from the project sponsor. >> i am the attorney for the brickyard. i will keep my remarks brief. the appellants bear the burden

of proving that the categorical exemption has not been a pride appropriately. -- applied appropriately. they have failed to show it falls within the exceptions of the use listed under the guidelines. the appellants have provided no expert opinion or proof of noise which violate the ordinance. the city has conducted its own analysis by way of two venue inspections that we just heard about. the brickyard has given numerous concessions.

before the brickyard moved in, of the project was vacant for two years they got used to the quiet and they seem determined to keep this location shuddered. the planning commission listened to extensive testimony and agreed that the numerous concessions were adequate to address the neighbors' concerns. the unanimous decision allowed the project to move forward and it should stand. i urge you to uphold the determination of the planning department and allow this to proceed.

>> since the late 70's, this venue has been a full-service restaurant and bar. in 1983, it became bayside sports and grow. it was in business for 15 years. this space was vacant and considered it like to the area until we opened. since the opening of the public, we have focused on becoming a neighborhood restaurant and bar. we created over 50 new jobs. we invested significantly in our kitchen and brought in our executive chef who was trained under thomas keller serving high-quality locally owned food. we are a proud supporter of local charities and nonprofit organizations. we have helped these organizations raise over $40,000

in the past year. this has undergone a complete renovation aimed at attracting a more mysterious -- a more mature clientele than the previous menu. our patio has the support of the union street merchants association, the enrichment association, directly adjacent building owners. we also have the support of over 1200 san francisco residents. 125 live within a few blocks of our venue. we understand that there are some members who have issues with proposed ounce dining areas. it is important to consider the

typical use of this restaurant and patio. there are always exceptions were the venues aren't full capacity. our typical attendance is 30-60 patrons. we understand and respect the fact that the neighbors have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property and we have no desire to interfere and we would like to close this with all of our neighbors on union street. we feel with the changes that we made during discretionary review and with responsible management, this new business will add value to our neighborhood. thank you. >> any questions? at this time, why don't we hear from members of the public that wish to support the party of interest.

>> i am the chef. i have to go first because we have a restaurant. i have opened a key of the business -- i have opened two of the biggest businesses in the past few years. i'm a chef. i came here because i wanted to do good food. i came here to bring that to this place. we are a restaurant and a sports bar, we are not a sports bar. that is what we do. we are doing good food and we have a good environment for it. i apologize for you having to be here. >> next speaker, please.

>> about a year ago, we opened before the brickyard. we took a big chance on this space. this was really dying. it was really dead. we remained in a tough economy. we spent a lot of time, energy, effort on our restaurants and we built out a really nice place. so did the brickyard. they have done a really good job. the food is fantastic. the patrons are a really good crowd. they always have a security person there on the weekends. i always blocked in to see how they're customer traffic is busy. there has been times when there are 10 or 50 people there and they still have a security guard to to make sure that nothing goes wrong. i was here on january 20th when

the planning commission approved this project and we have heard from the planning commission again. any further delay of allowing them to open the patio would be obstruction of commerce and i strongly urge your support. >> i'm resident of the union street area. i live on the corner of the cannon and filbert. i'm partners and a small business in san francisco. i have to say that in the past few years, we have seen the inconsistency in some of the challenges that the union street corridor has seen. the evolution of the corridor with other businesses up and down the street, i can say that

everything i've seen with the brickyard has done and i recognize the concessions that have been made. >> i'm here to support the brickyard. to call this an average sports bar with an image her clientele is really a disgrace. i encourage you to check it out. this is an amazing restaurant. this has very good clientele and i am proud to say i am a frequent visitor. this is probably the loudest corner in san francisco. i never once had an issue with

the noise level coming before 10:00 which is when these windows have to be closed. also, the reason i moved to that area was because of the outdoor life that union street has. it has shops, restaurants, everything you want in a city that you can really take advantage like every other neighborhood in the city. i want you to give me the same rent that they have. finally, i like to speak to the character. i am very proud to not only, my

friends but also my business. course i am one of the partners on brickyard. i moved to the area about a year and a half ago. i am a former police officer. i only bring that up to let everyone in the room know that if anyone will keep a watchful eye and one is going on in the community, it will be me. i can really tell you which martinis -- which of our opponents are drinking martinis one after the other. there is a lot that goes on in a neighborhood.