we have pictures also. but they're not being shown. the conditions measured by the e.c., the environmental -- i'm sorry, by the entertainment commission are actually the ones that we've lived harmoniously with for over 30 years with previous bars at this location. the serious noise impact occurs when the bifold doors are open. this allows the noise from a 3,600 square foot sports bar which is elevated to blast and ricochet extensively out into our homes and our community. the true conditions of this project have never been investigated by the city. our committee has testified at the planning commission -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm bob bardel, president of golden gate valley neighborhood association.

i just want it read out of section seven of 3.2, uses permitted to neighborhood commercial districts under the subparagraph nonpermitted uses, subparagraph, sub-subparagraph b. no use, even though listed as a permitted use, shall be permitted in a neighborhood commercial district which by reason of its nature or manner of operation creates conditions that are hazardous, noxious or offensive through the emission of odor, fumes, smoke, sinneders, dust, gas, vibrations, glare, refuse, water carried waste, or excessive noise. now, the question before us, i think, ultimately, is what excessive noise be emitted from the brickyard with the under the mitigated plan proposed by the planning department? and all i would like to say is that we have no idea. as sky vember just testified, the entertainment commission's study doesn't really tell us

anything we don't know, the baseline of the restaurant that when it's completely sealed. there is anecdotal evidence when the door is opened and crowded it's a horrible situation. but with three doors open, with -- if indeed -- can be prohibited from using the deck, how loud will it be? we don't know. now, how do we get an answer to this? i can see a sound engineer doing an a-priori analytical study, that might be good enough if both parties could agree on a sound engineer. but i will testify after working with them for over a year trying to forge a compromise, i doubt that they're going to agree on a sound engineer. the only other thing would be to have some kind of a trial period which of course might inflict consecutive noise on the -- excessive noise on the neighborhood as they're all predicting. but i believe this is the key issue that needs to be addressed and somehow we've got to come to a solution. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm serena bardel. long-time member and board member of golden gate valley neighborhood association. i would like to tell you that in all the years over 20 that i've served, there has never been a problem brought to us by any of the other tenants including margaritaville and bay side at that location. and these -- some of these same people have lived across the street or down the street from this location. so they have not been whiners or complainers in what -- but also in all this time, the place was closed in the front. a lot of this wouldn't be happening if there had been open communication. we made enormous efforts to reach the owner of the property and the holder of the license to try to work out differences, to act as honest brokers

between the people being affected who live there and the people who are having a good time inside the brickyard. our efforts failed miserably. we've spent more time on this issue in the last year than on any issue i can ever remember. trying to work things out. and we failed time and time again. so i don't think we can depend on the good will of these folks. there have been -- there's been no good will. we've reached out and reached out to no avail. and i hope that the fix isn't in. i hope that you're really being tenantive -- attentive to what we're seeing. thank you for your patience. >> excuse me. can we get this projector to work? we have some photos. president chiu: yes. if you just lay whatever you want to project, if you could put it on, it's actually showing right now. just put something on. 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.