what are the only people that are coming before you people of mideast turn dissent or asian? this troubles me as a resident of san francisco. it is fair and equitable enforcement of a loss because those are not the only retailers in san francisco, but why are these the only people that are being stung in these operations and only coming here before you? and listening to the tapes because i did request the tapes of hearings at department of public health on one day. all the names were of similar dissent -- descent and that troubles me and i do not know how that could be fair and equitable given the demographics of the city. in order to have to practicdue , they do not deliver their letter

brief says required of the appellants, they send them out by mail, and when they send them out and they are late and they do not comply, the response is the appellant could have asked for a continuance. that is not adherence to the requirements. the average citizen believes they have to comply with the rules of the board. the average citizen believes the rules of the board comport with the charter and they are guaranteed certain rights under the charter. the board also says that certain things have to be summarized when the board deviates from a decision. that has to be in writing. an appellate should never have to wait for a rehearing consideration to get a summary of a written decision. they should able to get that once the board makes a decision and the board approves the minutes. i urge you to uphold the rights of the people of san francisco and take a look at the practices

that are happening with this enforcement that is occurring with the department of public health. it is not conforming with the law, it is not conforming with the spirit of the law, and if it is a department official from public health that says we do not have any legal obligation to tell people how to enforce the law, i say to you, where is the mission of the department of public health? where have we gone wrong? it should be all of our concern to make sure that is unforced if that is really what we want for san francisco. [bell] bacon. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will start this time. i do not have before me any new evidence to warrant a rehearing. for that reason, i would vote in

the same way as the last matter. >> i would concur. >> i am somewhat moved by tobacco cases but for different reasons than were presented by the woman who spoke in public testimony. public comment. i do not think that we, we being the city of san francisco, have a good idea of what the ultimate financial effect is on a business when we impose these penalties. there is no opportunity for monetary fund. -- a monetary fund. at issue here, i would hate to think of myself as being an advocate for reduced sentences

when these cases come before us, what is left out in the public testimony is the fact that there is no denying that tobacco is sold to a minor. so if we were to treat that as a plural instead of a singular, is that a reason to overturn? is that the reason for rehearing? maybe grammatically, it might be correct to say that tobacco was sold to a minor. as a class, a minor. these are red herrings. the facts are that cigarettes were sold, whether there were smoke or not or whenever. it was sold to a minor and the department of public health is probably authorize to try to do something to attenuate such sale. if they had all the money in the

world, they might be going door to door and presenting people, they do not have all the money in the world. they do the best job they have with the money they have and statistics -- because of the conclusions that are drawn with them. there has been a lessening in the incidence of smoking. can we say cause and effect, it has to do with this program? no. the fact that -- remains that smoking, the incidence is less but nothing new was presented here tonight and i think if i would stand up in public and suggests that some department was operating in such a way that underlined their procedures was racism, i would hope that i would are myself with lots and lots of statistics as to what the demographics of people who operate these types of

businesses, as to what are the racial backgrounds of people who have come before this commission? i have not been aware that is principally arabic or principally minorities but i would think that because of the ease with which one enters a business such as this, is likely to be a minority. capital is required to operate this kind of business and so perhaps you do find people who are minorities, more likely to operate this business but again, i am going on too long about this but i guess it is one of those things that comes before us but i feel rather strongly about. i agree with my fellow commissioners. nothing has been presented tonight that would cause me or any other member of this board to decide that -- to grant a rehearing in this case. i move that we deny the request for the rehearing. >> commissioners, shall we call

the roll? when you're ready. >> on that motion to deny this hearing. commissioner fung. this request is denied. >> moving on to item 4c. the board received a letter requesting that the board take jurisdiction over the building. issued on april 15, 2011. the appeal period expired at the request was received on june 3, 2011. the permit holder is -- and this is a three story single family

dwelling. is the requestor here? commissioners, -- >> commissioner fung: can you request our -- refresh our memory? >> he took his request and he walked out with the receipt that you have which shows the june 22 date, so there has been a rescheduling and there is no reason for rehearing. >> commissioner garcia: there is one more case. can we hold this over until he

shows up in which case we will hear it? >> that is fine. we will put that case aside and move to a regular calendar item. we will call item six which is appealed 11 - 056. golden gate valley neighborhood association. subject property is 1787 union street. protesting the issuance on april 4, 201111 to kap investment, permit to alter a building fora a new patio. we will start with the appellant. >> before we start, there's not a full board so i respectfully request this matter be continued until it can be heard by a full board? >> we have a procedure in place and here is how we operate. we have the hearing when we have

four commissioners and if the vote were to be 3 -1, we continue the matter ourselves pending the opinion even though it might not have passed what might have been overturned, pending the input of the fifth commissioner. >> ok. all right. thank you. >> my name is megan chechile and i am representing golden gate valley. we're here for one reason. the permit does not work for the neighborhood. i live at 1791 union street which is across the street from the front of the brickyard and i have lived here for over 23 years. this case is not about the neighborhood or myself being against the brickyard or their business. during the 23 years i have lived here, there has always been a

sports bar across the street. the brickyard is the latest occupant of the space and all those years -- in those years i have not complained personally and i know some of my neighbors have never complained. because the noise was cap contained within the four walls of the building. the problem is the applicant ripped off the front of the building without a permit and instead of four walls, there are three. this allows the noise and disturbance to project directly into residences less than 75 feet away. the demolition and construction was done illegally against the instructions of planning and building. contrary to what was stated in the applicant's brief, the planning department did inform the applicants that were not permitted to remove the front of the building. a fact admitted to in a letter from the owner and the applicant's response. they proceeded to remove the

front of the building and construct a deck, violating a stop work order until they were forced to stop due to the withholding of their health threat. planning simply require them to enter into a process to legalize the open front and elevated debt. the result is our community was denied its right to weigh in on the feasibility of this prospect through a process prior to its construction and it is presented with a completed project which is flawed and does not work. this deck is elevated. it is 6 feet above street level, set back 8 feet from the street with walls on both sides. there -- this creates an amphitheater-like effect where noise trumpets out of this building and is projected upwards and downwards into second and third story residences across the street and down octavia streets which are residential zone homes. while -- according to second

145.2 of the plan, they cannot disturb the residences. this project as both. in the first few months of operation, although they were not permitted to occupy the deck, the bifold doors were open and our community was subjected to severe noise coming from the establishment. the noise got so bad that i bought the sound meter and while i am not an expert by any means, the noise redding i submitted in my declaration in your package was taken saturday morning with the deck unoccupied. this was a better situation. the noise is a real and serious issue that has not been meaningfully investigated by the city. there were brief sound readings taken neither of which measure the conditions of the project. there were taken at street level with the deck unoccupied and the first was taken with the by full

doors close. this does not reflect the project at all. here is the recording i took for my third floor bedroom again. this is with the deck on occupied and only one bifold door open. this is not the union street fair. this is a typical sporting event day at the brickyard. the nature of the business is important to consider. there has been a sports bar but this is a very large restaurant that attracts a young and exuberant crowd and they arrive by the busloads. when they enter the establishment, the noise has to go somewhere. when the bifold doors are open, the noise goes in to residences. this is reflected in this picture. an awning will not control the noise in lieu of the building

front. all parties have acknowledged serious noise impact from this project yet the medication conditions are and investigated and not enforceable. we tried to get the city to investigate through ceqa to determine if there are workable mitigation measures but they refuse. we are left with an illegally built project with unenforceable operational conditions that can be applied at the applicant's sole discretion. they do not have a track record of obeying the rules and regulations which has been damaged -- demonstrated by the violation of the conditions on at least three occasions during this appeals period. although some instances were investigated, we were informed that unless planning witnesses, there is little they can do. there is a declaration submitted. this project does not work.

contrary to the applicant's assertions, the community is not against the business and we're not against outside sitting provided it does not negatively impact the livability of our homes. we have -- as well as the second venture, back yard. it is a red herring to suggest that the neighbors concerned by the noise and safety issues posed by an elevated deck, a deck that would hold 12 seats out of an occupancy of 130 -- blasting noise into our homes. given the track record of this regarding rules and regulations, the illegal construction, the permit discrepancies and the disregard of directives, the violation of the stop work order and violation of the conditions during the appeals period, we do

not trust that these are enough to address the serious loss of the project. we believe this permit will not work and the best solution for all parties, the neighbors, and the businesses to require the applicant to put back the front of the building that they had no permission to remove and establish sidewalk seating for outdoor dining. if the testimony does not convince you of the inherent flaws of this project, we have a request that the existing conditions be strengthened. the bifold doors must be closed and sealed and the deck must be used for seating and dining only and the hours must be limited on the deck to no earlier than 11 and no later than 8:00 p.m. in order that families with children can sleep in their homes and we strongly urge that if any kind of permit is granted, it be done conditionally with a public review after one year. >> your time is up. >> i am sorry. >> did you have much more to

add? >> i was going to say this should provide ample time to determine if this can work and thank you. >> you had made some comment about the commissioner board and i spoke over you. >> that is ok. in the exhibit that contains the planning commission hearing transcript, there was -- a motion to have a one year review, but when they made the motion it did not make it into the memo. >> commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner peterson: did you list that -- can you tell me what page? >> it would be toward the end of the brave. >> commissioner peterson: the listing that you were running through at the end. >> that the bifold doors remain closed. >> commissioner hwang: thank

you. we will hear from the permit holder now. you can do that when you are done. >> good evening, commissioners. alex rosenthal on behalf of the operators. we ask that you uphold the existing building permit with no new conditions for these reasons. the appellants have failed to show the project violates the requirements of the general plan or the planning code. the noise and safety issues raised in the brief have already been heard and adjudicated twice. the appellant lost both hearings by unanimous decision. the project conditions agreed to

during the discretionary review process are adequate to address any noise and safety concerns that may have. no. 4, contrary to the accusations and misinformation presented by appellants, my clients have acted only in good faith and obeyed every directive given to them by the city to bring their building permit into compliance. the appellants argue that the plan does not meet the plan and is unprecedented but they fail to provide any argument or evidence that modifications to the project will not adequately protect them from possible disturbances. the appellants claim that because there are no other elevated outdoor activity alamance this project should not be approved. the entire menu is an elevated 5 feet above union street. what may be true that no other venue is elevated, this is not a reasonable basis for overturning the decision. both the planning commission and

the board of supervisors entertained a full briefing and hearing on the concerns about potential noise and safety hazards. this body has powers as you know and you are not required to defer to the findings of the planning commission but we hope you find it instructive that the appellants had opportunities to make their cases. fort teterboro separate bodies and make no new arguments here and they do not provide any new evidence. today, the appellants argue that the conditions imposed by the commission are unenforceable. they claim that my clients have violated these conditions without providing any credible evidence thereof. the permit conditions were drawn up by my clients as a direct result of months of feedback from the neighbors and the planning department agreed these changes would be adequate to solve any potential problems presented by the project. the appellants accuse my clients of intentionally breaking the lock in attaining their building permit approvals and they allege

various violations of stop work orders issued by the city. nothing could be further from the truth as hopefully you read in our reply brief. my clients have never had any intention of putting their plan to remove the sun room and they do not know why one copy of the permit ochas the words sun roof crossed out. in conclusion, the appellants brief is replete with baseless allegations, half truths, and distortions, indicating they will stop at nothing to prevent the brickyard from completing their project and obtaining the final government approval. my clients have acted in good faith to comply with the city's requirements and they moved quickly to correct any mistakes that were madethe appellants hao demonstrate otherwise.

a loss for record reason. the conditions are adequate -- inadequate to address their concerns. we ask that you uphold the existing building permit. yet i would like to introduce susteren -- darren. >> i am the operating manager of brickyard. our patio has the support of the union street enrichments association, all the adjacent businesses. we also have support of over 1200 residents. 125 of those live within two blocks of our venue. while the overwhelming feedback is supportive, we understand there some who have issues with the dining area.

is teeming with activity. we are looking forward to though, your your -- we are looking forward. typical attendance on a weekday evening is 30 to 60 patrons. we understand the facts but our neighbors have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. we want to coexist with all our neighbors, both commercial and residential superior -- and residential. i would also like to make another comment secure a good to

-- comment. we have operated for 13 months with a perfectly clear track record from any government agency. we have injected 50 new jobs into the area. we went into a space that was vacant for two years and helped contribute to the decline of union street over the past two years, and all we are trying to do is run an honest business and be able to compete with the other 18 restaurants said have outdoor areas. it thank you -- thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> i would like to begin with some background of the project.

this is within the union street neighborhood commercial districts. this began in early 2010. the application sought to remove this and closure. goothey affirm it would requiren application. the building application and was revised to note it was application of the sun room. the permit was issued on the 22nd. the plans were not modified, but it was clearly indicated to the project sponsor what's needed to be done, and the sun room was to be removed and replaced rather than simply removed.

the department immediately responded. it came to our attention but work was still continuing, and i think the scene near building instructor can confirm this. nobel day permit have been issued -- no building permit have been issued of the time. a building permit was submitted on june 4. this ought to legalize the work of the permit and also is subject to neighborhood notification. the notice was issued on july

26. this is normally a 30-day notice. however, it came to the attention that a permit owner did not properly post a notice, so i suspended that to allow for adequate notice project. on january 20, the commission who heard the item. they have detailed s conditions i think were included in your packets. these were to address concerns of the neighbors a. we looked to enforce the noise ordinance. the department filed -- of these would adequately address

concerns. a ceqa appeal was filed on the 12th of april, and an appeal was filed on the 14th of april. i believe it was a unanimous vote to uphold environmental determination. that brings us up to today. it is not so much an opposition to a restaurant use or even to the patio use. it comes down to the noise issue, and it seems to come down to the doors. those are the issues the board may want to focus on. one door would remain operable as a way to access the patio. as the appellants noted, we have received several