, i do agree it is the current standard. moving forward, i would be more inclined to allow this, especially getting clarification that mta does not oppose and would not oppose the application of the current standard. president goh: i do not disagree with that strongly enough to vote against it. i am more confused by the comments about the mta position, but i will not stand in the way in this case. is there a motion? vice president garcia: in all fairness, i think mr. jarvis wants to address the board. president goh: do you have a comment to make in response to my comment about my confusion? >> i want to note that in this

particular situation, even though it has dragged on for so long, we are not necessarily opposed, if the application of the current coze is used today. however, for future reference, we are using that for this particular situation. this is not something we expect on going. we have cleaned up the situation quite a bit. in that vein, because of the various things that have gone on in this matter, we are not necessarily opposing it. however, there was a statement that made it appear we would not oppose it in the future. we would absolutely oppose it in the future. i just wanted to make sure that was clear. president goh: is there a motion? vice president garcia: i would move this board overturn the denial of the application for a medallion, based on grounds that -- go ahead. >> we are overturning the

decision. given the various comments by the commissioners, the unique situation of this case vice president garcia: with findings to be written at a later date. >> we have a motion from the vice president to overrule the denial, at issue this medallion, with the adoption of findings at a later time. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. aye. -- commissioner hwang: aye. >> the appeal is granted and the denial is overruled. adoption of findings will be scheduled later on. president goh: we are going commissioner fung: you know what works. >> welcome back to the august

2011 board of appeals. we are: item eight. golden valley neighborhood association, shirley jacobs, jeffrey lee, and megan chechile protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, a revision to exterior patio and submitting planning code 312 notification. the public hearing was held june 22, 2011. it is on for further consideration. the matter was continued to give time to review additional noise negation measures. additional briefing was allowed. we are going to hear first from the permit holder or his attorney. you will have three minutes.

>> ok. i did not do it. i am sorry. vice president garcia: before we go, i think most of these people were not in the room when we had the original swearing in. whether or not you want to go up -- go through that again is up to the director and you. president goh: i think it depends on who -- i am sorry. it depends how many people are intending to speak. maybe we can cross that bridge later. >> there are 59 of us. that is including myself. i do not think any of us were in the room. president goh: why don't we go ahead and do it, if you don't mind. >> if you intend to testify and which the board to give your testimony evidenciary wait,

please stand and raise your right hand. do you sell the swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> before you begin, i wanted to give the president an opportunity to put on the record, since she was absent from the hearing previously, that she watched the video. president goh: i did watch the video, the whole thing of the previous hearing. >> go ahead. three minutes. >> i am the operating manager of the brickyard. during our last hearing, we hired an acoustical engineer to conduct additional sound analysis and identify changes of reduced noise. we retained a local acoustical engineering firm that has worked on numerous city projects,

including the young museum. on friday, july 8, the current principal conducted sound readings at the brickyard. they confirmed the findings of the previous entertainment commission reports that the proposed use of the patio conforms to the noise ordinance. mr. salter also shed light on two points mentioned by appellants at the last meeting. specifically, sound readings taken from street level are accurate, because the city of san francisco considers the property line to be a plane extending into space. was levels at the second and third stories would be the same as those measured at street level. the brickyard interior does not act like a trumpet projecting sound out of the front doors. architectural features of the venue, such as sound absorbing wall and ceiling panels, and help control noise buildup within the venue. mr. salter is here today to

answer any questions you may have. this is three separate sound readings by experts that confirm the conditions are adequate to maintain the noise level below the required ordinance. this is a permitted use in the commercial district. we have an open 14 months and the appellants maintain we have done nothing to address their concern. this is not true. we explored many options to address noise concerns. this work resulted in conditions for use of the patio that we volunteered, including closing the patio and doors by 10:00 p.m., limiting use to 12 seats, restricting doors that open, and installing a sound-absorbing awning. none of these conditions were in place when we first opened in 2010. yet the appellants are still using examples from this time to make their case. with these conditions in case come out -- in place, the planning commission unanimously approved this patio in january. the brickyard has taken more

measures to address noise than any other businesses in union street. we've tried to work within the existing physical structure because changing it would result in construction costs and cause further financial strain on a struggling business. noise ordinance compliance is not dependent on physical structure in place. it also requires responsible management. if it were physical structures alone, no venue would be allowed to have windows or doors that open to the street. giving the existing structure with the conditions in place, there will be no violations of the noise ordinance. we are responsible business owners and neighbors. we do not recommend additional changes. in closing, thank you, we do not recommend changes for the physical structure. we request the board denied the appeal and upheld the conditions imposed by the planning commission. vice president garcia: i have a question for your acoustical

expert, mr. solomon. there seems to be some dispute about what the base ambient noise level should be. would you tell me what they are and whether -- but whether what you think they are agrees or disagrees with the entertainment commission? may be shed some light. i intend to as the other side also. why does waa state it very differently? >> the ambient noise measurements -- my name is ethan halter. the measurements of background noise that we took on the evening of july 8 were noted in our report. they were higher than those noted in the wia report, but similar to the ones noted in the entertainment commission report. vice president garcia: is that

formulary? it seems as though when i was reading the papers that were you to want to know about ambient noise levels in a given block there is some more you can go and a chart that would tell you what that is. it is not an independent reading taken by someone such as yourself or someone else. there is an exact, absolute number that exists out there. is that inaccurate, my impression? >> if i may say, there are guidelines to typical background noise levels in a variety of different types of neighborhoods. indeed wia report, they show a graphic that shows everything from rural farm land to right next to train tracks. those could be considered reasonably representative of a typical neighborhoods of that type. there is also the on-site

measurements approach, where you actually go to the site in question and conduct measurements of the noise levels that exist there. vice president garcia: so for the record, the bass ambient noise levels used by the entertainment commission are the exact same base ambient noise levels you use? or do you do your own and have some measurement that was different than the entertainment commission? >> the measurements were different. my measurement, wilson eric's measurement, and the entertainment commission measurements. our measurements were similar to one of the measurements, the times the entertainment commission was out there. the wilson measurements for quieter than the ones we measured, which is one of the points in the report. the ambient noise level in the neighborhood goes up and down depending what is going on in the neighborhood. cars, buses, airplanes,

equipment and various rooftops, people talking. to the extent that the ambience was measured by our firm or others, it changes depending on the time of the even. vice president garcia: you took how many readings? >> we were at the bar for an hour or so. vice president garcia: mean you were outside, in front of the bar? >> we were across the street for a portion of that time. vice president garcia: what was the range? >> in our report, the outside measurements were about 63 dba or so. vice president garcia: that would be a medium or a mean. what was the range? >> i do not have that information. vice president garcia: did you

choose the figure you chose? >> that is what is typically done in environmental measurements, what is known as the leq o the time we were there, the term. it is used in planning analyses to arrive at the contribution of a particular noise source as compares to the already existing noise sources. if you have a freeway, for example, and want to add more lines of the added traffic, what does that do to the overall noise level due to the freeway, or a rooftop fan, for example? you add it to the environment that is on 10 hours a day. how does that change what is already existing in that neighborhood? we looked at what are the changes in the ambient noise

levels, or noise levels at that site due to various operating conditions of the brickyard bar and restaurant. doors opened, doors closed across the street and close in. vice president garcia: it seems to me that if you are going to establish a base based on those figures, you could choose a night when the bar was particularly loud, and that would establish a higher ambient noise level. that is why i am asking whether there is some range or other established way of deciding what the ambient noise level should be for a neighborhood. tell me this. what does leq stand for? >> equivalent noise level. noise goes up and down. it varies over time. the leq is a measure of what happens if you take that energy

and make it equivalent over a particular time. vice president garcia: it is like a mean? >> it is somewhat like that, but it is a little different than that. it is dependent on the time, and it is equivalent. vice president garcia: thank you. president goh: i have a question. maybe you can answer my question. it sounded from your earlier comments, and maybe mr. salter might be better to respond to this -- it sounded as if the measurements were taken at the ground level, and not a but the third level. i think i heard you say there is not a difference. >> that is correct. president goh: yet they were not measured. >> we extrapolated and used our experience to make that

statement. president goh: ok. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the appellants now. >> i am still a little bit nervous, but i am getting better at this. i am representing golden gate valley. i also live across the street from the brickyard. we are here to request this board rescinded the permit for a second store deck with adjoining open doors. although this board requested that the applicant themselves investigate the noise impact caused by their project and work with us to find technical solutions to meet our reasonable concerns, that unfortunately did

not happen. instead, they came up with a custom some report, in our opinion, taken in a very minute amount of time to support their position that there is no problem. the first time we were provided any information, even though we contacted them right after the appeal hearing and also at the union street association meeting, was when they filed their brief to this board on july 28. after they filed that brief, they've been contacted us and said come on over and meet with our sound expert. that was the night before our response brief was due to be filed. in that brief, they said there was no problem, which they have just said, and that no mitigation was possible or legally required. at that point when we got their brief, we knew what our experience was. since they did not do what this

board had advised and we thought there were going to do, we did. at considerable expense, we hired an acoustician to evaluate their sound report. when his review indicated the applicant's report was flawed and inconsistent with some bubbles that could be expected, he proceeded to the other technical data over several days to validate his initial assessment. as his report indicates an confirms our experience, this project violates the noise ordinance even under a favorable condition. we also requested he investigate possible mitigation optionsin ho options. in our last hearing, we presented evidence. the pictures, testimony of the impact on neighbors and the

communities show the flaws of this project when you're a good -- of this project. we can argue about decibels. we believe it is reasonable to expect the barn door is kept inside their premises and not come into their homes -- that bar noise be kept inside the premises and not be allowed into our home. we will answer any questions you have. >> if you will elaborate on why step should be taken, and try to make me understand those issues.

>> the noise ordinance in san francisco is very specific. your later going to make sure the offending noise is silent, and during those 10 minutes, you look at your sound meter and find the lowest repeating who sound level. that means some when our cargoes fire or a bus, you ignore it, because you are looking -- when a car goes by or of us, you ignore it because you're looking at the lowest level. this shows the variation of south levels and overtime. what you see are 10-minute periods, and i have four of those for monday and four for tuesday.

this gave us an indication of the level of noise. you can see how the sound level goes up, but you are looking for the lowest repeated noise level for 10 minutes. you can see eye to a red line that touches the bottom of the white line that represents the noise level, and you can see the typical noise level becomes lower as the night progresses, but as you past 10:30 or 11:00 at night, so that is how you arrive at that level, which is crucial, because the ordinance says you cannot achieve a level above this ambiance. does it involve any environmental studies?

>> what is the difference between your ambient noise level and the entertainment commission? let's do that number furs. >> it does not define what the ambient noise level is. it just shows several noise levels, but they do not provide a definition of ambient noise level. on the first visit, the envy of lawyers and -- n.v. of noise level is blank. the incident -- ambient noise level is blank. she took some readings across from the venue and then some more readings on the side street. he shows sound readings below the box with levels of 52, 51, 58, 61, so we've we stand by the

requirements of noise ordinance, which is to look of the lowest levels, you can deduce that the inspector -- >> go ahead and make reference to this. >> i circled those in red because if you reach those levels, you can deduce the ambient levels are 51 or 52. >> if they were going to determine there was a violation, it would have to be a decibels higher than which figure? >> and m b and level -- the audience levels -- ambient

level. the level i came up with is the order of 51 decibels, based on two nights of readings, looking at the lowest noise levels. i did not make any noise readings at the facility. we just tried to establish ambiance, because what struck me is the ambient noise level was so high, and the fact he isn'ase door open, it is an impossibility. ambient cannot be higher than noise from the facility. it tries to avoid the influence from cars, buses, and so on, as

defined by the ordinance. >> i have no trouble following that logic. what i am asking is what is the highest reading coming from the brickyard, and what would therefore be eight decibels lower than that? >> i did not make measurements of the brickyard by itself, but if we look good through readings -- look at the readings they took, you can see many readings are higher than eight sensible levels higher. it is also similar to the readings the inspector made on their first business. >> let me try again. what number did you assign that would cause one to say the brickyard was not in compliance with noise ordinance?

above what number? >> it would be about 59 decibels. >> you are saying you got no reading from the brickyard. >> that is correct. >> is it reasonable to assume there is just a difference of opinion on what ambient is, that there is no violation on your part, because you did not take any readings that are greater than 59? >> i did not take any readings of the brickyard itself, so i am relying on the data who commissioner so -- the commissioner spok took. >> i want you to agree with the

way i phrased it to make sure i understand its. the change by noise was never measured by you to determine if it was above 59, which would be the outside figure if you were to use 51 as the base. >> correct. >> is there a departmental commonent? public comments? may i see a show of hands about how many people are planning to speak? if you could please line up on that side of the room, and if you have not filled out a speaker cards, i would ask that you please do so, or when you

are done speaking, give it to hanim. >> good evening. >> given the number of people, we have another case left to go. >> two minutes. ok. this is my second times begin in front of you -- time speaking in front of you. i am the owner of a company adjacent to the brickyard. both of us have been in business for two and a half years. we have created 100 jobs and significant tax revenues for the city. i have known there and and his partners to be responsible business owners -- darren and

his partners to be responsible business owners, and i believe they should be allowed to have a patio to create a vibrant community gathering spot, like the brickyard is now. i think they should be allowed to do this, because other businesses, including my business, are allowed to do this, and i do not think a couple of tables and chairs outside are going to create a lot of noise. i live a couple blocks away, and i year buses and cars outside. i hear people digging through garbage. when i go to napa, and i say, it is quiet but i made a decision to live in the city. sometimes it is noisy. sometimes it is quiet, but that is living in the city, and i think not allowing them to have this patio is an obstruction of commerce,