the steps to be compliant and we are waiting on this appeal to get our final permit. the only thing holding up is this. we have two other locations, one on valencia street street and one in hayes valley. both of those are commercial spaces under residential apartments and never once in that time have we had a complaint from above. i'm not sure if you have had a chance to look at or not our petitions but we passed around them to the fellow neighbors that we share the building with and we got signatures from nine people above us that it's not too loud. that we are helping the community and they like the improvements made. once before

we moved in it was a run down location and as one of the tenants of the building upstairs will attest to and it's in the letter that the blockbuster was noisier noise than the gym and people would be under where the gym is now at 1:00 o'clock in the morning. our gym is only open until 11. furthermore the location was abandoned after the blockbuster moved and before that was essentially a homeless shelter. there was human fesses , fecal matter and different living arrangements and people would come and crash forit night and leave and we improved the area and we chose this location because we care about san francisco. like i said at the beginning family

owned gym. all of the owners are from san francisco and lived here their entire life and they care about it. one thing i did want to throw back up was if you don't mind is the reading of the decibel levels that we took. using the same phone app that the appellant used would you mind -- >> yeah, go ahead. >> okay. it's a little cut off. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, if you could. thank you. perfect. this was taken one of the days i was working as a fill in at the desk. the owner came in and wanted to see how loud our sound was to see the improvements that we made and this was taken during peak hours and this is the sound readings that we received.

there was no ploy. we're not trying to fake anything. like i said at the beginning and i will close with this our goal as a gym is promote the wellness aspect and that essentially has quiet to the gym and in respect to the neighbors and tenants we try to mitigate the sound and this is the first time we've had this happen. thank you. >> a couple of questions. what is the structure of the floor? >> underneath the rubber matting or under the matting itself? >> under the mat rubber matting? wood frameed. >> like a commercial floor and wood frame. >> is there a basement below it? >> yes. >> have you had any testing

done by a professional? >> besides from the dbi we have not. >> what is the entire structure look like because i understand the appellant's unit is right above the gym and i think he stated that there were 125 or i don't know exact number but the 19 lights -- >> sure. >> reflect -- basically comprise 120 square feet of his unit so i would like to get an understanding of the entire building structure. >> the entire structure is 2500 square feet -- >> no, the whole building. >> we have some pictures. the only pictures are of the construction. >> that's okay. just describe it. >> as you walk into the gym it's a square section with a slightly longer rectangle section in the back. to the left of that

section -- if you can visually the box -- >> yeah, the house, the building. >> oh -- >> because you said there were tenants that never complainted. >> there's is probably around 30 units. >> 30 units. okay. >> above the building. >> you can speak directly into the microphone if you're more familiar. >> he does. >> yeah go ahead. >> what is your name for the record. >>i am milton o'brien and i am one of the owners of live fit wellness clubs. the entire facility is on the corner of bush and leavenworth and stands four stories tall and 32 units with an elevator and constructed in the early 1900's and 1910 and under historical what have you and mr. fung as you asked your

question there is 1 inch for the joyces and another area that is not exposed in at least 50 years. >> and how many units are directly above the gym? >> probably one -- i would say at least -- at least half a dozen. >> okay. immediately directly above. >> immediately directly above. >> that's it? >> and there are multiple levels. >> and one unit and that's the appellant unit and basically impacted one unit. >> that's correct. >> and this gym has been in operation for six months? >> it opened up in march i believe. >> and prior to that it was vacant? >> it was desolate for many years. >> many years. okay. >> i can make a comment or can i do it now or i have a card and do your three minutes later. >> you can't do the three

minutes later. you can do it r rebuttal. if yo question i would like my questions answered. so if this has been in place since then and nothing was there prior for several years -- >> several years. >> how long -- are you one of the many landlords? you said you're one of the owner -- >> no, i am the owner of the gym itself. i have nothing to do with the owners of the business. >> okay. >> i'm a leasee. >> do you know is the owner here? >> no one put their hand up so no. >> thank you. i have nothing further for now. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. can you tell me the duration of your lease? >> it's five years and five years. five years and five year option.

>> from when to when, the date? >> from the top of my head i'm going to say around january 2013 for 5 years. >> okay. got it,. thank you. >> just to be clear because you're the permit holder your time so speak and the seven minutes and three minutes for rebuttal and you're not allowed to speak under public comment and i want you to understand. >> in rebuttal. >> you can if you wish and true for the family or any owner of the business. okay. thank you. mr. dufty -- oh mr. sanchez go for it. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. i just wanted to note a couple of facts for the record so the subject property at 1050 valencia street is located in a residential commercial high density zoning

district. the subject property -- the lot itself is approximately 4600 square feet. 46 feet by 100 feet, build in 1912. approximately four sisters and 24 dwelling units and the space within the building. the subject use is personal service under the planning code and it's principally permitted. no notice is required and also no limits on hours of operation within the zoning district so i wanted to provide that. >> did you say personal service? >> that's correct. so a gym falls under personal service and include other -- you could have art classes, a yoga studio, you could have the gym. >> okay. >> is there requirement for sound testing? >> no. there is no requirement for sound testing or proofing. >> okay. >> mr. dufty.

>> good evening commissioners. mr. dufty d bi. the permit was a revision -- sorry, a revision to an earlier permit to reflect the ceiling detail from a previous permit and there was a complaint filed -- probably from the appellant here and the issues and we investigated it. our building inspector ed donnley was there and met mr. o brien and we opened up ceiling to check for insulation. there was confusion in one of the inspections and from my recollection everything was satisfied in the building code in what we wanted and the assembly on the ceiling and one layer insulation between the ceiling joyce and sheet rock and rc channel and another layer of

sheet rock. can you use several layers to do that and per the code they're okay from us. there were a couple other permit for the change of use and revision permit as well, but as of now i believe the gym is -- we have given them a temporary certificate of occupancy and waiting clearance of this and we will close out the permits. that's the information i have from the district inspector. i am available for any questions. >> go ahead. >> so mr. dufty it has resilient layers. >> that's what i am to believe and i don't have the plans but he was saying it did have rc channel in there which isn't required for sound proofing under the building code but there is a assembly you're

allowed to use and i spoke to the direct inspector this morning. >> i'm sorry. rc channel. >> you put up sheet rock and a channel between the first layer of sheet rock and the other layer and it's part of a sound proofing system. >> the channel has a resilient material at the point you screw it in so there is some absorption through the lower layer. >> by creating the space it doesn't impact -- >> it doesn't flow through -- >> it only hits the rc channel. >> i didn't see the approved plans but that's the detail choose to use and the railing on the fire railing but the railing between the commercial ground floor and residential in case of a fire that's what the building code addresss. >> but is that the best method?

is that the most effective method to absorb sound? >> there are different types of ways to accomplish that. the best way -- i wouldn't be an expert on that but it's certainly acceptable to us at the building department. if that's the detail you can use it. there are 10 ways and this is the one they choose according to my building inspector and i'm going by what he told me. >> one other point mr. dufty and since it was a two hour assembly there then no hose would be allowed above the light fixtures. >> probably have to box around them. you would have to -- >> these are surface mounted, so i assume the 2r rating material goes behind the light fixtures? >> yeah and fire calked or

sealed. that's what we expect it to be. we leave that up to the inspectors and the electrical inspectors look at that as well and sealing the insulation so no chance of smoke or heat getting up there. that's the way it should have been done. >> do you know whether it was done that way? >>i inspect the building inspector -- he's pretty thorough. >> that's the case. the commissioner asked you what is the best method for sound proofing and there are multipel methods and to paraphrase sounds like you're not comfortable saying and are there other ways? >> with modern materials there might be a better way and as a building inspector i have seen different ways to accomplish it and i would yes to your question. >> and is the difference simply

a matter of cost or just -- >> cost i would say, yeah. >> for materials or just the changing modification -- >> design and cost. coming up with the design and that, but it -- it's not required per the building code. >> i understand that part -- >> no, i know. >> not being a contractor i don't know of all the ways you can sound prove or mitigate it. >> in my experience i haven't seen -- i seen a lot of rc shaped channel. that's what people mostly do it. in residential in your own house you could do that between floors to deflect the sound. >> could you tell me about the insulation and the channel there is space. is there actual

insulation involved? >> i haven't talked to the inspector but it's fiberglass insulation and whatever r value that has and that is stuffed in between the flooring, the ceiling joyce and the ceiling. >> okay. that's just standard for any building. >> yes and that would have been there before the gym was there. the blockbuster may have put it in -- a lot of the older buildings don't but you imagine -- i know mr. donnley looked up into the ceiling and observed insulation and i was there that day. >> you said that would have been expected. the insulation that

has absorption value you expect that to be in place. >> no. we expect the r value but if you want the additional stuff that's up to you. it's voluntarily. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this? seeing none we will start with the rebuttal then. we will start with the appellant. you have three minutes. >> just real quick mr. donnley -- actually i have been in contact with him and emails and if you accept that -- >> that's the landlord? >> no it's the co-worker and i don't know if they don't want to be in trouble or don't remember. that's not my issue. i was told two hours and four layers of this and jimon mod and he will there are other kinds and this was approved. this is the

original plan and they changed it -- i am sure to save money. for how much? $630 to cover with five dlsh eight. 63 sheets. i do the math. i don't need to be a scientific here and 10 bucks a piece and it's 630. to do three extra ones and 1890. to do four layers 2520. they put more on the lawyer to put the sheets up there. r30 and fiberglass -- the question you're asking and barely any fiberglass and said there is old fiberglass in there and to the ceiling -- i would do eight hours myself and 25 feet rolls and between the joyce and $656 and reduced the noise by i think the rating is stc is about over

40-decibels, so if they follow what they actually had the first plan i wouldn't be here. they skimmed out the cost. that's why we're here. they spent money on lawyers. that's fine. they want to waste everybody's time in the city here. i guess that's why we're here to talk about it here. also we're under oath. they didn't add a sheet later as i asked, so that's false information right there. the rubber matting is not half inch. it's quarter inch or less. probably 5-millimeter and added extra under the treadmill. it's not under the weight. you can't chair gyms and all i know there is a deaf person at the other places. it's not important. in the sheet they sent to everybody showing

blockbuster is a ruin place that's fine. i have a picture of it. that's fine. they were working on it and showed nasty picture while it's worked on and a finished picture and have everyone sign it like i'm going to stop the gym. they could have hired me as a yoga instructor and i could have covered for people and sure i will hop down and the acoustics they didn't do anything to help until we came here. >> okay. your time is up. i have a question. how long have you lived in that unit? >> 16 year. >> so you were there with blockbuster? >> yes. >> how is the sound? >> extremely loud. you can call the manager of blockbuster. i have his telephone. we didn't have any problem. >> you didn't have any problem?

>> no. >> okay. they have the television's blasting -- all of the stuff -- >> thank you. you answered the question. thank you. thank you. three minutes now for the permit holder. mr. obrien. >> i don't want to come off harsh but i want to set a few things straight. the fellow here we met when i was taking over the lease and when it was being demolished and the sheet rock rork and he was talking to the contractor who was the foreman of the job and his exact words were "i don't wanti don't care what goes into this place i'm going to shut them down" and for that reason i stayed away and not

until dbi asked me to connect him and i bit the bullet and i did and unfortunate he was gone for the last 90 days and he got back to san francisco last week and i dropped off the packet like required and it was gone the next day. two, our gym doesn't make any noise. it's very quiet. i invite anyone to come by anytime but listening to the laptop making it is noises and the man said himself he's a sound engineer. means he has the ability to manipulate what is happening to his own benefit. i would have spent the money to bring in a third party sound person and i didn't know if it was required and i never got anything from this fellow anyway because he turn in the paperwork and we went in blind. and i

didn't spend any money on a lawyer and he's my nephew and a second year law student and he said of course i will do that for you and he did a really good job. that's all i have to say and thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we're not 24 hour fitness. we're a wonderful -- i 30 seconds. okay. let's use the time. we're not 24 hour fitness, golds, crunch. we don't have 5,000 members in one facility and spin classes. we offer acupuncture, massage and personal training and yes we have the zumba and the yoga but we try to bring nice thing to the neighborhood. we have another facility between 17th and 18th street on valencia street and the building there

has at least 10- 12 units there and we have another facility and everywhere we know i know that we improve our neighborhood by bringing health and wellness to our community. thank you very much. >> i would like to have a response to the position by the appellant that the -- what was on the original plans was not actually implemented. >> can i just interrupt you for one second and to clarify the permit before you is a permit to revise the original plans to reflect what they did do -- >> i see. >> i would like to see about why the change then. >> there was originally no change. we did from the beginning what the planning department and building department told us to do and we did that exactly. the only problem is when the tenant went to the planning department and

building department and tried to stop our permit process. mr. dufty and ed donnley who is the fellow i saw more often. they came out and cut several holes in the facility to make sure there was in fact the proper insulation. it was there and fixed the holes and fix the ceiling again. >> proper and not consistent to what you originally submitted. >> i didn't hear what you said. >> when you say proper i want to know why the change? simply because it's to code versus what you originally planned? >> to my knowledge the person that did -- first thing i didn't do the construction. the landlords hermar did the construction. >> okay. >> to my knowledge we had no changes at all. there might have been tweaking going on in construction. that happens frequently but there was no

reverse course to save $5,000 to make it less sound proof and we did what we always do and make it correct under the city codes. >> okay. >> okay. anything further from the departments? mr. dufty. >> commissioners, i probably know what you're going to ask me but i don't have the approved plans with me and this is one of the problems and we don't have the drawings to refer to the details. if there was a permit obtained to reflect the detail from the previous permit that would tell there was something different that the inspector asked for. i was out there but i deal with a lot of buildings and i can't recall what the issue was but mr. donnley is a thorough inspector and i checked and there were details for the assemblies and if there was

something different he would have asked for a revision and brought by the building applicant and our department would have reviewed it to meet the r2 assembly. it could have been the existing flooring above, the size of the joyce. it could have been the sheet rock, insuliation, anything we he wanted but seems like we're dealing with the detail from the change of permit and without that i can't tell you what the difference is. i would only be guessing. >> but mr. dufty when you visited the site and looked at it you saw in essence two layers. the bottom space you saw a space where the resilient channels are and a second layer above that. you don't know what is above that layer; right? >> mr. fung, it was about three

months ago and the inspector was on the scaffold but he verified what he wanted to see and they cut the holes and we left satisfied. >> the reason i ask i don't think you can get a find assembly that is two hour rated with only two layers. >> two layers? i'm not sure. we go by the manual here. there are several ways to achieve it, so without going back over the approved drawings and the detail we won't know that. >> understood. >> so if you want us to do that we will. >> okay. >> okay. thank you. commissioners matter submitted. >> well, i think it's hard for me to decide if i don't know what is there. that's the problem. so i don't know --

it's -- inspector dufty has volunteered to go out and see what is actually there and i think for me i need to know that before i can decide. >> i feel similarly. >> no, i am not so much concerned about the fire rating. if the inspectors have reviewed it they understand what that needs to be. it's okay mr. dufty. >> [inaudible] >> it's okay. tell us. what is there?

>> can i have the overhead? >> this is from the manual. it's one of the details. two layers of sheet rock and two by 10 wood choice and 3-inch mineral rc channel equivalent. that's from -- that gets you -- 2r [inaudible] construction detail. there's a couple more with two layers of 5-inch sheet rock as well so there are several layers to accomplish it and i believe they choose one of these and that's all the building code required. >> i don't think that answers the question. you are making an assumption on the record and you ca