Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 28, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
>> 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
8:31 pm
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
8:32 pm
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
8:33 pm
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.
8:34 pm
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.
8:35 pm
i live and my biggest concern about the neighborhood is never noise from the restaurant itself. as odd as that may sound. it is actually the muni buses that come by every 10 minutes. you hear more of from those than you do of bar noises. on occasion, you will hear the loud cheers. the pictures that we see our extraordinary days in which we have had march madness. we have the world series. it is surprising to me that we have to go through the same thing over and over again. buses do not pull up and stop in front of the brickyard every day. we do not have them congregating at the brickyard every day. the noise, i have heard things like deafening.
8:36 pm
i would probably be the first one to complain, living on octavius street. we want to be respectful of our neighbors. we want to consider things that are going to -- [bell] president chiu: 0 thank you. next speaker. >> i move there because there was a lot of action, bars, things to do, and we are on a major bus line. just the noises from buses in groups of people coming from other restaurants, bars, places, it can deftly drawn up the sound of my tv. it is not an extremely quiet. . since the britster has been opened, it has not increased at all. i was there during the bayside
8:37 pm
days. it is definitely the same or better now. >> my name is the napp. i am a neighbor and homeowner. i have lived within two blocks of the brickyard. i am here to show my support because we're very happy to have a new addition to that block, especially on union street. during the downturn, there have been some and the store fronts. finally, we have some vibrancy on this part of the block. where i moved to where i did, i'm very happy with where we are. >> how are you doing? i am -- i live three blocks away on lombard. i have three points to make. one, it is about the economy, which i think there was about 30 vacancies a few years back on
8:38 pm
union street, and we were in "the new york times" about such a downturn, and we have brought new businesses in. we have restaurants to be allowed to flourish, and i think there are maybe only 10 vacancies now, and it is definitely getting better, but i do not think we are out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. the metropolitan area was just voted i think top-10 economy's going in the wrong direction by "forbes," and with the 10% or so and in climate rate, but i think it is about the economy and trying to generate small- business, and it is for this restaurant in this business. there are days when there is a colorado-buffalo football game, and people come in for that, but
8:39 pm
in general, i hang out there sometimes, and there are 20 people. one is about the economy. two is the opposition is very disingenuous for the most part in my opinion. it also blocked the cn which shop from coming in in the same location citing it was a sports bar, although if you have ever been to their restaurants, it is not a sports bar. and even attended a golden dave valle neighborhood association where they said they liked the vacancies because it could remind them of when their kids could play in the street 40 years earlier, and i do not need it is fair to compare well with koran on for years earlier to what is going on in union street in 2011 korea i would rather be living in the 21st century. but -- in 2011. i rather be living in the 21st century. >> i am a district two resident
8:40 pm
in a limited partner in several bars and restaurants throw out san francisco. i do not have a financial stake in the brickyard. i am here today because i think it is important to point out that this establishment is located along and entertainment corridor, and the city does not have enough entertainment or doors for its youth. there are something like 15 to 18 outdoor sidewalks that currently exist on union street, and i feel that this business has been unfairly singled out. i am a strong supporter of not granting this appeal. i think it will be a financial burden on a business that already has lower operating margins, so thank you for your time. >> oh, board.
8:41 pm
my name is sean wells, a 12-year resident of san francisco, and i am at the builder and designer of the brickyard. i wanted to point out three things. it was amazing, but what is more amazing is after one year of being open, it still looks like it is close. there are still boards. i do nothing that should be allowed to go on any longer. secondly, i have done about 20 bars and restaurants in my career. i have never set more time or money on sound panels that i have with the brickyard, and thirdly, i walk into a lot of projects at the very beginning stages and get to see the neighborhood, and the great thing is is there was parking everywhere. there was not energy on the corner. go to that corner today, and
8:42 pm
there are people walking across the street. there are cars waiting for parking spot. this neighborhood has been brought back to life, and i think that is the point of trying to ban the bars and restaurants. thank you for your time. >> hello, supervisors. my name is eric, and i am one of the vendors for the brickyard. i am also in residence of san francisco and live to the blocks away, and i just wanted to express my support for the management and the owners of the brickyard. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am one of the owners of the brickyard. but this one to talk about some of the support that is here. we obviously have some opposition from the neighborhood, but as you can see here, we do have lots of
8:43 pm
support. as you can see from the people who have showed up today as well as building owners. we have got about four adjacent business owners, 26 business owners on the street. 1200 residents, and there are about one of 26 within two blocks of the business. as we are talking about sound, a, pointing out that your response will business owners, and we spent a good deal of money on the sound panels and have made changes to violate the state open on the patio, having accepted limitations that we have. we also have multiple business owners, 26 patio's on union street. i would just like to point out that this is not a new thing to union street, and we would like
8:44 pm
to hopefully enjoy our patio's. thank you. >> ibm jeffrey levine. i have been a 20 year resident of san francisco and a neighbor of the brickyard on union street for about 20 years. i 100% support the management and the establishment of the brickyard, and all of the issues are positive in the neighborhood. fahey. -- thank you. >> this reminds me of what i experienced in chicago. i lived across from a german bar, and i love the hollering.
8:45 pm
just by sitting in my apartment, i was able to know when there was a home run or a score. it was great. and now, a live across from a theater, and it reminds me help quiet of the neighborhood is, a in a really wish the theater would put in an open window, and that which i consider the lecture series, and that would be a good thing . i think rowdies' boards bars are a thing . -- icing browbeat sports bars are a good thing. -- i think rowdy sports bars are a good thing. >> the brickyard is frequented by many people, and i serve on
8:46 pm
the board of directors of a group, .and many of our constituents in the brickyard is a great place to be. it is frequented by people are professional and to have a good time. people are not out of control, and i think that speaks to the great management. i fully support the patio. i think it would be great to the economic vitality. >> i think i am last, so my name is jason. i have lived in san francisco for the last seven years. i am a vendor also for the brickyard. this is my first time here, and i am sure as elected officials, this is part of what you every day. emotional outbursts, some are actual, some are not.
8:47 pm
the reason i am standing here is that the owners of the brickyard are as ethical as business owners can possibly be in san francisco. i think this city would be better off to have more people like them, and hearing the neighbors, their emotional pride, their emotional responses to the loudness that is the brickyard, to be a part of it, as shawn has pointed out, there have been thousands of dollars worth of soundproofing and equipment to disallow the potential noise, so i am in full support of the deck. president chiu: any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the project sponsor? we will hear from the appellant.
8:48 pm
>> fenty. we have heard a lot of great people today in very much want union street to succeed, and i implore you to help us do that, and i'm going to get back into the boringness of ceqa. the wrong legal standard is being applied here. the planning department looked at the noise impact of the project. i have to tell you that is the wrong standard. once you start doing that analysis, measuring the impact, they have jumped ahead of the process. they have done all of the ceqa analysis. they cannot use the function as a factual manner. also, the guidelines set the threshold, and the threshold is
8:49 pm
very different under ceqa. in the ceqa guidelines, it would be whether the project would involve a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local joel plan. that is why i mention the general plan to you earlier. it shows we have a real conflict of evidence here, and then finally, is substantial temporary or periodic increase in the indian ways. these are the things that the plan the department should be weighing. if nothing else, what we saw here today was a real conflict of evidence that must be analyzed in disclosed. thank you very much. president chiu: colleagues, in the final questions to any of the parties here?
8:50 pm
items 20 to 22 r in the hands of the board. supervisor farrell: you guys have been great owners on union street, and i think we all want to see union street succeed here, the appellants, as well. thank you for your hard work. i had his gun to know a little bit more recently. also, the planning commission, for your hard work. first, let me say i knowledge some of the concerns of some of the neighbors that have come here today. despite living close to or on union street, which is an inherently noisy areas, and get the fat you are concerned about
8:51 pm
noise. i get it. what i want to make sure is that we are evaluating a very narrow issue. this is why it is more than just a categorical exemption from ceqa. we're not here to review the dr hearing. i received a number of calls to overturn the d.r.. i know it goes to the board of appeals to review that. we do not have the authority to look at whether or not it was in bad faith that the patio is removed. that is behind us korea our decision is very, very narrow, and i take that commitment very seriously to review what is before us in a very narrow manner, and i understand there
8:52 pm
is a bit of a debate here, but my understanding is that the language according to ceqa is whether the project will cause a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project. and as much as i share an understanding neighbor concerns, and i do not know if everyone has a copy of this, i have extra copies, but there was a test that was conducted when the property was close to capacity, and all of the doors were open, so not just what was required according to the planning commission, but all fire doors were opened. i do not feel i am in the position to overturn the planning department and inspectors who have been out two times now that a determined the sustained permanent noise. in addition, we have to keep in mind that the patio is one to close at 10:00 p.m.. the owners are going to install
8:53 pm
a noise dampening awning. and last weekend's test, again, with all of the doors open at capacity " -- on union street and 4 union street, the and the noise, it did not come close to imposing a noise ordinance violations. i do want to propose that we uphold the categorical exemption korea however, as they said, i do understand the neighbors' concerns. i move that we uphold the categorical invention. moving forward, i understand their frustrations over time that they are the ones responsible for contacting the police department, and nothing is done about it. i am empathetic to wit, and i commit the office resources i have to make sure that is not a burden on individuals, so what i'm going to do today is front-
8:54 pm
runner the issue for people. i will send a letter to entertainment commission and our police department asking them that once the patio is open and constructive that they can conduct 3 random tests during the first month of operation and report back to my office, which i will share. if there are noise ordinance violations at that time, i am happy to support and make sure that the neighbors voices are heard and that the owners are held accountable korea everyone has my commitment on that. however, today, i do not believe we are in a position to require a full eir on the project, so i'm going to move item 20 and tables item number 21 and 22. president chiu: supervisor farrell. he has a motion. seconded by supervisor elsbernd.
8:55 pm
>> i do not think that ceqa is implicated here. a lot of times, people mistakenly believe that felo goes well beyond where it actually goes. i just do not think it is implicated here. with that said, coming from a district where part of my district is in the castro, and we have a number of these situations korea we had one bar that had something revoked recently and another one that made it in the "the new york times" a few weeks ago because of a problem. we as a city need to do a better job of regulating some relationships between neighborhood and neighborhood -- and establishments. we tend to sometimes not do what is appropriate. we do not do a good job in a lot
8:56 pm
of instances. enforcing the noise ordinance. there are other times when we way over riyadh, -- over react, like a few months ago, which was an extreme overreaction by 1 unreasonable neighbor, so we have not done a good job of getting it right. it is not in forestall sometimes, and sometimes it is way, way over in force. i would like to see consistent enforcement so that bars and restaurants as well as neighbors know what is ok and what is not ok and be confident that enforcement is appropriate and not overreacting. in terms of this case in this narrow seek what issue, i agree with the motion and will be supporting it.
8:57 pm
president chiu: supervisor c ohen? supervisor cohen: i will also be supporting this, and i would like to say to the business owners here today, you will probably hear from neighbors, so i does want to say to check out the third district court were were allied is live and open for business. that fee. -- thank you. president chiu: any of the discussion? ok, colleagues, a roll call vote on supervisor farrell's motion. secretary: on the motion from
8:58 pm
supervisor farrell -- [reading roll] supervisor kim. kim, aye. supervisor mar. mar, aye. supervisor mirkarimi. mirkarimi, aye. president chiu: the motion is approved. why do we not know go to general public comment? secretary: public comment includes items but not those being -- a member of the public would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector, the states such and
8:59 pm
remove the document when the cup -- returned to the live coverage of the meeting. president chiu: can we hear from the first speaker? what [speaking foreign language] -- >> [speaking foreign language]