Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Noise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues dispute over Brickyard patio to Aug. 10 for acoustic mitigation analysis
Summary
After hours of testimony from neighbors, businesses and the Planning Department, the San Francisco Board of Appeals continued the appeal over a permit for an elevated outdoor deck at 1787 Union Street to Aug. 10 and ordered technical noise mitigation proposals and limited briefing deadlines.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 22 continued a contested appeal over a building permit for an elevated outdoor deck at 1787 Union Street (the Brickyard Restaurant) to Aug. 10 and directed the permit holder to provide additional technical analysis and proposed mitigation measures.
Neighborhood appellants said the Brickyard removed a glass‑enclosed front without proper section 3.12 neighborhood notice and created a 3,600‑square‑foot elevated deck that acts like an "amphitheater," projecting noise into nearby residences. "This project as constituted simply does not work," neighborhood representative Megan Shashile said, asking the board to require the owner to restore the front or strengthen conditions, including sealing bifold doors and using a single swinging service door.
Counsel for the permit holder, Alex Rosenthal, asked the board to uphold the existing building permit and said the planning commission and Board of Supervisors had previously reviewed and approved the project and conditions. Brickyard operating manager Darren Matt said the venue had added jobs and community support; he said typical weekday attendance is 30–60 patrons and that the owners had adopted sound‑dampening measures.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized the permit history, explained why the department considered the deck a ground-floor use under planning code definitions, and said the department extended neighborhood notification when it learned the posted notice had been missing. The department noted two Entertainment Commission sound readings that did not find noise‑ordinance violations and said the planning commission had imposed conditions limiting outdoor seating to four tables (maximum 12 people) and restricting how many doors may be left open.
A long public comment period produced testimony both for and against the patio: nearby residents described repeated noise and disorder and submitted recordings and calls to police; adjacent businesses and some residents said the patio would bring vitality and urged the board to test the planning commission conditions. Commissioners focused their questions on acoustical impacts, door mechanics and enforceability of conditions.
Vice President Michael Garcia moved to continue the appeal to August 10 so the permit holder could produce a technical acoustical analysis and propose mitigation measures (examples discussed included a self‑closing swinging door, additional dampening and an awning). The board authorized up to six pages of additional briefing per party (permit holder’s submittal due July 28; appellants due August 4). The motion passed 4‑0 (President Kendall Goh absent).
