you're. immediately, the security person was really intimidating and it seems to be based on that she might copy them or sell them, it was a very weak reason for not letting the woman sees what was being planned for the neighborhood. the recording wasn't nearly as impressive as the last hearing that i came to, for whatever reason. the engineer that you were good enough to call, for you to base an opinion on someone that talks about her down and dirty, probably not, chances are, i don't think that is sufficient for you to make an opinion about anything. and these people went ahead and build a deck that was not to specifications. the planning department and had to the plan, i saw the blueprints that she was trying

to copy. i understand they never got find, and they are just going to implement their plans. i have great confidence in his group. i have been before a lot of commissions and i am impressed with all of you. whatever you do, i think will be the right thing. >> next speaker. is there another speaker? >> i live directly across the street from the brickyard back. for 41 years on the top floor with commercial tenants baloney. the people in favor of the open deck do not live directly across the street from the deck as we do.

they're not directly affected as we are. this is a real problem. and possibly, i may have to leave my home due to the excessive noise of the brickyard project that would be created. my long-term tenants in my victorian building have refused to renew their leases which and shortly. they are waiting for the outcome of this hearing. i would like to point out that the community has been attending many meetings and hearings for the last 16 months. we have said about all there is to say. only myself and a few others are here tonight to summarize our community's concerns about the noise.

there have been over 100 letters from families and many with children within of block and a half of this project. many of them handwritten saying how the noise will damage them. the question here is, is it fair that serving 12 people on the back out of the occupancy of 150 determined local businesses and residences, in my experience with the past bar called bayside, they kept their windows closed when there were big events going on. this is different. they contained therein lies within the sun room, within their establishment.

the brickyard is a much noisier sports car with many very large screen televisions featuring constant sporting events. if the deck is approved, no one will be monitoring or making sure the door is closed. i feel strongly that having a sun room like before will contain the malaise. it is the best solution for our neighborhood. thank you for hearing me. >> any other speakers? >> my office is directly across from the brickyard. i have been here on the june 22 hearing and on august 10. june 22 hearing, they were told that the burden was on them to prove that they are not a noisy bar and a nuisance to the neighborhood, and when we came

back, i think that was clearly not proven because the conditions were not duplicated when the doors were closed and no one was there during their sat test. the fact is, when the doors are open to the party deck, it is very busy and it is insanely loud. the financial hardship they claim is untrue. they're opening their third establishment in a few days. most restaurants don't make it past of the 1-year mark. >> any other public comment? >> i was born here in san francisco and i live here now. i am 21. i like going out. i fully understand it. i grew up here. i spent a good deal of my

childhood directly across the street and i have been there since then. i have heard it without the bar and with the bar. this is a very residential neighborhood. there are children, families, people that get up early, coffee shops and baristas that get up early to get to work. noise wise, i get that san francisco as a high density city. you'd expect there to the bars and i expect of the noise. but in that same time, it is the good neighbor policy. in my opinion,, supposed to wake up at 6:00 a.m. or earlier to be at my place of work that i can work and to serve the people stumbling out of their bar and when i am behind the counter and

i haven't slept because of the noise. all we are asking is for them to contain it inside their four walls. he brought up pictures earlier, that is street level. you expect street level bars. the second story is heading higher and higher into the neighborhood and people's homes and their families. they have shown that they don't play by the rules. they took off the front of their building without a permit. then this board instructed them to come with some kind of solution to contain their bar noise. what they have come up with is a solution that doesn't contain airborne noise. in all fairness, the brickyard wants to be competitive. they want a sidewalk seating, they want to be competitive and keep their doors open. how hard is it to move these 12 seats down to sidewalk seating? how hard is it to move it down

eight, 10, 12 feet? especially if it is not right in front of people's veterans. where people try to relax. the residents have the right to enjoy the quiet in their homes. people have the right to -- or because they are politically connected, they can throw the rules back in our faces? this is a nice street with a variety of things for people to enjoy, but how as anybody allowed to do that? >> is there any other public comment? commissioners, the matter is -- commissioner garcia: if i could ask a question.

on occasions like of the one that you demonstrated to us while playing that sound, have you called the police department and made a complaint? >> i called on one occasion, and on another occasion, my neighbor called over to the brickyard. we were trying to not call law enforcement and work it out with them. commissioner garcia: your statement would be right now, without open windows or this patio, the noise level is already intolerable? >> i would not say that it is intolerable. there are issues with crowds, when there is a large sporting event, because of the nature of the doors, you get sound that comes out, but i am in a commercial district, i expect some level of sound. i would not say that with the

doors closed, it is intolerable. >> the situation right now would be exacerbated by having that back? >> absolutely. we haven't experienced people on the deck, the we have experienced the various configurations of the doors open. commissioner garcia: it is reasonable to say that you will be unhappy even if they don't do the deck. >> no, the noise is okay right now. i just said that. commissioner garcia: the deck is not there, we don't know what the effect is going to be. have other neighbors called the police and complained? >> i have heard that they have. commissioner garcia: what were the results of those calls?

>> i don't know what the police do. commissioner garcia: as far as you know, they have not been cited? >> i don't know. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> i have a question. your request here, as all the proposals of the permit holder, and your counter is the enclosure with the glass wall. and what was the other? remove the duck altogether? >> the other is -- i forgot what is called. a door system that would contain the noise within the bar. >> it opens and shuts. >> what is it called?

what happened when you suggested that. >> they did not like that idea. >> on what grounds? >> have been made to the contrary proposal. >> what the proposal for that was, it would kind of va 3.5 or 4-foot square and it would close behind you. i guess i did not see that as being realistic in this application in the sense that it would take out a big chunk of room and the only place i have ever seen that, i have seen those for the application is at a shooting range. >> what about a door that opens and automatically shuts? was that ever considered?

>> that was definitely considered. >> a that was not one of your proposals. >>no. no. >> was the proposed and considered or is that not what the appellants were interested in? i am trying to understand the potential compromises. >> i think there would be an option for that, if either option. it would be for some sort of self closing hinge. yeah, that is an option. >> that is something that you would find acceptable? >> if that is a solution. >> i am trying to find out if that is considered, and if it was considered, why not? >> there are a lot of times, i know who we are always looking

at one end of the spectrum when the giants are in the world series which might not be happening this year, but when there is a full sports crowd, there is a lot of noise coming. under those scenarios, i would close the door anyway. i would close its because of the good neighbor policy. 80% of the time, the patio is being used on a weekday, early dinner sort of crowd. we open at 4:00 p.m., and that would be a desirable place to go. there would not be any crowd noise because there would not be any crowds between 4:00 and 8:00. weather permitting, it would probably be three or four months a year, it would be desirable to keep that want access door has just opened so that it would kind of have ease of access through. certainly, when there is a full

crowd, i was there when it was full. other times, the windows were closed and it is just a good neighbor policy, to keep that access door closed when we are not using it to contain the crowd noise. >> i appreciate the effort to be a good neighbor, but the problem was that some people did not think that you were being a good neighbor. i would like to hear from you about the hinge door. >> we had our sound consultant look at that, and his concern, if you have 12 people on a deck of being served, using the restroom, going back into the bar, the door is probably going to be open more often than not. every time the door opens, if you have a 6 inch opening, noise will come out.

it makes me anxious. >> that would be an unacceptable compromise? >> are they going to prop the door open? >> assuming they're not propping it open and it automatically shuts -- >> if the noise days in the bar, that is all we want. >> the noise doesn't stay in a bar as it is. >> the recording was with one door open. i wanted to just show that even with one door open, there is a noise issue. >> hoyas the window to your home to open or closed? >> my window was open and i have a single pane glass windows. with all respect, i don't think

it would make a huge difference. it is an old building. >> thank you. >> comments, commissioners? commissioner garcia: i was hoping not to have to go first. i think for all of you granting a continuance to see this get worked out, i hope no member feels as though i tried to divert the argument about a different road and reframe the isue. sue.

part of my concern had to do with the fact that it seemed as though we had sided without enough concrete evidence that this operation was in violation of the noise ordinance. i felt disappointed as every other member of this board did, in the second meeting we had, those who are concerned with the brickyard, those that have a concern did not come forward with some greater compromise that would have shown two things. onem, hopefully a solution to the problem, and almost as importantly, and of concern for the neighbors and their chance to reach out. i want to show some respect for you, and i will come up with

realistic solutions. i feel as if the line of questioning was probably correct. it has always been suggested, perhaps not totally knowledgeable, about these issues that, for the most part, it was shut off except for one or that with self-shut. is that handicap button on there? some wait-person, he or she could bump it and possible shut again when outside. granted it might be opening a lot, but the door would be shut permanently after 10:00. i don't want to appear to be an advocate for this particular permit.

i am still concerned about the fact that we are suggesting that the methodology depended upon by the planning commission, practiced by the entertainment commission to determine what represent a violation, we are deciding it is inadequate. having heard from him, he represents himself as a true professional with a thorough understanding of what is involved in terms of the acoustical engineering aspects of this. my feelings remain the same, i still wish he would put in the door that would be shut a lot more than it is open. and i also feel that failing to do that doesn't rise to the level where i feel this permit should be overturned.

>> i do thank the inspector, it was interesting to hear about the police code that a resident does have control over shutting the windows. i was pleased to see two efforts from the project sponsor, maybe one limiting to the other side, i know it was rejected. one of those, i would be willing to uphold and keep the permit going into this business going. -- and this business going. commissioner fung: i am not convinced that a door by itself

with whateve rkinr kind of harde takes it far enough. the problem with closers is that they slow the door down. they close its eventually, but it stays open. the discussion that occurred here, perhaps we weren't quite clear, did not take it far enough. i am not prepared to, with the architectural solution -- come up with the architectural solution to contain the sound. i don't think it was appropriate enough, and i am not prepared to support this. >> i intend to agree with

commissioner fung. on other cases, we gave these two sets of parties tochances to work something out. they were not able to do that. we heard from the neighbor that has long-term tenants refusing to renew the lease and waiting to hear the outcome of the hearing. and we know also that the that t and noisy. we have heard over and over again how noisy it is. it seems to me that the mitigation offered was not sufficient.

commissioner peterson: i think i stated before that san francisco and its great offering of businesses with outdoor seating, which i parsley and joy, and i like businesses that do that, -- which i personally enjoy, and i like businesses that do that, but i agree the mitigation measures are not sufficient, as well. at the same time, and i think going back to the history of how the deck came into being, it remains problematic and sort of taints the overall process, really, and that is what we have to look out for, is this process. that is what we have to look out for, and that the notwithstanding my own personal enjoyment of outdoor space, and

air and whatever in an entertaining space, i think we need to uphold the concerns of the community here, and we heard it loud and clear. i do not think we can rely on that without more. we have not even reviewed the documents. i do not think we can use that for any basis. we are not going to see a good outcome even if we were to try

to implement a compromise. at least, me presley, maybe not commissioner fung, but i am concerned that if we try to proceed with things as they are or even with proposal a and proposal b, it will not work, so my idea is to revoke the permit. president goh: i also want to say that i appreciate the engineer. , saying across the street, it sounded like the sound was within five or eight decibels of the limits, so it is very, very close, and then given all of the parameters, speaking about the sound we heard tonight with just one door open, it did sound like a violation to him, so i think

that testimony is useful. are there other comments? vice president garcia: not to be argumentative with you by any means, madam but president, but i think one of the criteria that was brought up was that the complainant's window was open. president goh: she said it was open, right. vice president garcia: go ahead. commissioner fung: i am prepared to make a motion. vice president garcia: i was going to make a motion. if another person would agree, then the permit would be upheld, and i want to place conditions beyond what was placed on it. one would be to a for all conditions placed on this permit by the planning department, and i also want to suggest that option a be put in place, and i

am going to move that this permit be upheld. president goh: vice president garcia, another way to do it would be to allow commissioner fung to make his motion. vice president garcia: i really do not care. the one vote that moots his, and then we have to go upon the process of placing conditions on the permit. if this fails, there is no need for anything else either. director goldstein: i would say that one of these might conflict with what you are suggesting, which is the first one. the firm is planning commission condition is about the doors remain closed, one remaining open, and then the other two remaining open if weather permits. which seems to conflict. vice president garcia: thank you

for bringing that up. i think condition a is more stringent than that, so i would replace the first condition with this condition. director goldstein: ok. commissioner hwang: 4 point of clarification, are you suggesting that proposal a the condition? vice president garcia: yes. commissioner hwang: so no hinge on the door. vice president garcia: i would absolutely entertain that. commissioner hwang: i am just asking if that was part of your condition. i am not adding to it, just asking. vice president garcia: whether it was going to be permanently closed and work, or some device on the door to ascertain, or make certain rather that it is closed as much as possible.