Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Entertainment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Brickyard permit on Union Street with new noise-mitigation conditions
Summary
After extensive neighbor testimony and acoustical discussion, the Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to uphold the Brickyard’s permit for 1787 Union Street but added conditions requiring a single self-closing operable door, patio closing at 10 p.m., and a community liaison.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 21 upheld the planning commission’s approval of the Brickyard’s permit for a second-story patio at 1787 Union Street, but attached new conditions aimed at reducing neighborhood noise.
The Brickyard’s operating manager, Darren Matt, told the board the business offered two mitigation options: restrict bifold panels so only one panel opens (reducing open area to roughly 27–29 square feet) or replace the bifold system with a fixed wall and window/door combination. He said the Entertainment Commission’s site visits had not recorded a clear noise-code violation during their checks.
Neighbors and appellants, represented by members of the Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association, countered that the proposals would not sufficiently contain bar noise and that an open second-story deck would project amplified sound into bedroom windows. Appellants presented audio recordings and cited ongoing neighborhood impacts; nearby residents testified about lost commercial tenants and more than 100 letters filed in opposition.
An inspector from the Entertainment Commission (identified in the hearing record as Vajra Granelli) described the commission’s measurement methodology and said on-site readings showed interior sound levels in the 85–86 dBA range and exterior readings between about 66 and 69 dBA — “within 5–8 dBA” of the municipal threshold in many of the tested locations. He cautioned that an audio recording’s probative value depends on many variables (window open/closed, microphone placement, ambient references) but said under reasonable assumptions the recording played for the board could indicate a violation.
Commissioners debated whether architectural or operational conditions (self-closing hinges, an operable westernmost door only, automatic closers, a vestibule, or stricter night-time limits) would be effective and enforceable. Commissioner Fung later moved to revoke the permit on the basis that proposed mitigation did not adequately protect neighbors; that motion received a 3–2 majority but failed to reach the four-vote charter threshold required to overturn a departmental action.
Vice President Michael Garcia then moved to uphold the permit with modified conditions: implement the permit holder’s Proposal A (dated Sept. 15) with the westernmost door as the only operable door fitted with self-closing hinges, require the patio to close at 10 p.m. with all doors closed when the patio is closed, prohibit hold-open devices on the operable door, and appoint a community liaison (someone other than an owner of the Brickyard). The board voted 5–0 to uphold the permit with those conditions; planning and building departments were identified as the enforcement authorities for any conditions or violations.
The board’s action preserves the permit subject to operational limits and a requirement that the permit holder implement the agreed mitigation measures; enforcement will rely on Planning Department/DBI procedures and could include notices of violation and penalties if conditions are breached.
The action was taken as Item 5 on the board’s Sept. 21 agenda.
