Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brickyard patio permit contested by neighbors; Board continues case for negotiations
Summary
Neighbors and the Brickyard clashed over technical sound studies and ambient noise baselines for a proposed second‑story patio at 1787 Union St.; commissioners ordered a continuance to Sept. 21 for the parties to negotiate mitigation and allowed six‑page briefs due a week before the hearing.
A long, sometimes contentious public hearing over a second‑story patio at 1787 Union Street—the Brickyard—left the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 10 delaying a final decision so the parties could try to reach mitigation agreements.
The permit holder presented an acoustical study by Charles M. Salter Associates concluding the patio conforms to the noise ordinance; the appellants engaged Wilson, Erick & Associates, whose analysis concluded the project likely violates the city’s noise standard when doors are open. Experts disputed the proper method for establishing ambient noise—Salter used LEQ (equivalent continuous sound level) readings taken during site visits; Wilson/Erick relied on the noise ordinance’s ‘‘lowest repeating 10‑minute’’ ambient metric and recorded lower baseline figures.
Neighbors described noise intrusions into homes, impacts on children and patients sensitive to sound, and prior unpermitted demolition of the building frontage. Supporters of the patio said the Brickyard has revitalized the street, created jobs and followed planning conditions (seating limits, hours) and that other nearby establishments operate with outdoor seating.
After vigorous deliberations, including discussion of door‑closing and sound‑damping options, the Board voted 4–1 to continue the matter to Sept. 21 and ordered simultaneous briefs (up to six pages) from both parties due the Thursday before the continued hearing. Commissioners urged both sides to meet and attempt to craft specific mitigation: proposals discussed included limiting open panels, adding swinging doors, or structural enclosures; the Board did not adopt any immediate change to the permit at the Aug. 10 session.
The continuance gives the parties an opportunity to negotiate technical mitigations and present a joint or rival proposal with empirical backing before the Board acts again.
