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 can't affirmatively state it's there and relying on the reputation of your colleague. >> well that's what the building inspectors are -- >> i'm not asking about that. but is the record unclear? >> i don't think it is and there is detail on the 2r assembly that was required by the building inspector -- a very good building inspector and verified that and ready to sign off on the permits. that's all the code requires. i don't need to go back there and check the approved plans for that detail and i am confident the inspector would have gotten that detail. i don't have the approved plans here. if they were here on the overhead i would 100% say that

the building inspector edward don'tly got that detail and i am confident with that but i don't know -- >> let's put that aside. that's not really the issue . >> okay. >> the fire rating is up to the building department. the issue here is every assembly depending on the materials has a different type of sound insulation values to it and we don't know this what this one is. we don't know that the noise levels other than a permit -- the permitee doing a test himself and a appellant who did his own test. i'm not sure i would accept either one at this point, but the issue is not so much what is the best system to do it. many

different systems can handle different types of absorption and insulation and there's simple ways to do it and there's more complicated and more expensive ways to do it. i think the question for me would be any particular use needs to contain its impact on other spaces -- other occupants around it and it's incumbent upon the user to demonstrate that he has provided sufficient mitigations to sound, and i think it's where i am going to lead is going toward is i would like to see exactly what the assembly shows on the detail. i don't need the inspectors to go out there and

cut any holes. i would like to see the detail, and i would like them to provide a third party analysis of what the projected sound levels are, and what the mitigation will do to those sound levels. >> wasn't looking for the inspector to go out as well. i wanted the details as well and be informative. >> whichever way we will it those are the questions that will be answered i think. >> by the way thermal insulation provides little sound insulation so if you want to use the assembly that the inspector showed us which are bat insulation versus you know coiled insulation it's entirely different. >> i'm learning in that direction as well but i do see

a different -- kind of a different view of it commissioners. what was not mentioned this property is located on bush street and somewhere in the package i remember reviewing what decibel ratings are and the ambee an street level is 110. i believe i read that in the package and the appellant and the permit holder are differ and at 60 -- >> no the appellant said 60 in this room when it was quiet. >> yeah but if you look at the fact it's a street and i drive down that street to get my wife and there is a fire station within a block and a half and a major hospital the block prior so that street is a bain of san francisco and similar to pine, cellar or oak and the amount of traffic on a daily basis is

definitely going to exceed what the business is causing on the interior so i mean the sound traveling up through the walls i believe in that location that you're getting more sound from your front window and it's a very loud street and goes 24/7. >> do we have a motion? >> continue. >> yeah so we should continue this we can verify what insulation was used or what sound proofing was used according to the plans as well as for both parties if they wish to submit sound analysis of

decibels at various times of the day. >> okay. do you want to look at the calendar for a date? >> how long would that take? does anybody have an opinion how long that would take to accomplish these things? >> we could get the plans right away. >>i think it's the sound analysis that will be more of an issue. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> 60 days would be -- >> november; right? >> [inaudible] >> so it would be november. >> is 60 days reasonable or 45?

>> 45. let's compromise on 45. i think that should be enough. >> [inaudible] >> you can't speak. not right now. >> commissioners there are two meetings in november, the 13th and the 20. >> how about october 30. >> that has a lot of items on the calendar. >> i see that. okay. november 13. is that good? >> okay. >> so the motion is to continue to november 13 to have dbi verify what sound insulation measures have been used according to the plans and to allow both parties the opportunity to provide the board with third party analysis of decibel levels and mitigation options. >> just a minor change from

that madam director. the building department will provide the detail for the two hour assembly, not sound. okay. >> is that okay with you? >> yes. >> okay. >> are we talking about the approved plans commissioner fung? >> the revised plans. >> okay. >> so that ceiling detail from the plans is what you're asking for? >> yes. >> saying it more precisely than i did. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to continue this matter to november 13 of the public hearing has been held. and this continuance is to allow the permit holder to submit the approved plans to the board and to allow either party to conduct testing.

>> and i would add both parties are allowed additional briefing and helpful to me and hopefully to my fellow commissioners. >> one thursday prior. >> one thursday prior. >> simultaneous. >> how many pages? >> how many do you wish? >> not more than 10. >> and that would be exhibits. >> yeah. >> so additional briefing is allowed. one thursday prior is the due date for all parties. it is 10 pages of written arguments and exhibits and including acute cal results. on that motion to continue to november 13. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> vice president is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. this

matter is continued to november 13. thank you. >> okay. thank you. so next i will call item 5a, b, c, d. those are four appeals dealing with the property at 1050 valencia street and filed by the marsh and alicia gamez and for m. rutherford trust/shizuo holdings of a demolition permit and demolish one-story restaurant building with 2,000 square feet of ground floor area. two of these appeals are protesting the issuance for m. rutherford trust/shizuo holdings of a permit to erect a five-story, 12-unit apartment/retail/parking building with 3000 square feet on ground floor area. commissioners i understand that the -- one of the appellants --

ms. gamez's attorney steven williams would like to request rescheduling of this matter. there was a ceqa appeal filed friday. i have received notice that appeal was deemed timely. >> okay. >> and i don't know if the other parties are in agreement or object to that request so if you would like you can hear the parties speak to that first. >> yeah. i think that would be appropriate, so given what we just heard from our chairperson i would like to hear on the issue solely on whether or not the continuance is acceptable or not. >> thank you. steven williams on behalf of the appellant. ceqa appeal was filed on thursday and i'm glad that ms. goldstein received it

because we didn't receive it on a timely matter and it states it will do that and traditionally the board has continued the items to the call of the chair once the ceqa appeal is filed and the basic reason is no one knows what is going to happen to the project. conceivably the project could be changed radically and this might all be a large waste of time, and i would add those are the only written procedures that we have is the city attorney's memo from that date. there are no other written procedures that govern this situation. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear for ms. wiesman or her representative. >> so you want to hear if i agree to putting this off? >> yes. >> i agree.

>> okay. we have the permit holder, or the permit holder's agent. >> we would like to go forward. >> would you state your name. >> rutherford sponsor. >> do you understand the implications of going forward? >> yes, i do. >> okay. could you help me -- what are they? >> implications that we might be back down here again if the ceqa will go the wrong way. >> it will be muted. not back down here. a mute point. >> thank you. >> and mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. the department would not oppose the rescheduling and differ to the board on this matter. i would like to take this opportunity to note it came to my attention this week we didn't submit the

dr action memo and the planning department case report that were prepared last we're for the hearing so with the board would agree i would like to submit these for the record and also to the parties. again these are materials that were prepared by the commission back in september, 2012. >> we will accept those. >> thank you. >> so commissioners if you entertain a motion to continue this then we need to take public comment on that. >> i would move to continue. >> well, we need the public -- >> you're going to explain a motion so it sounds like you're going to so we can take public comment. let me see a show of hands how many wish to speak on the matter of whether this is rescheduled? okay. so there is no public comment? there is no public comment then commissioners. >> okay. i would renew my motion to continue. >> i think there is good cause

and it would be most efficient to allow that appeal to go forward before our hearing. >> okay. do you want to pick a date certain or do you want to continue it to the call of the chair? >> i think we should do it to the call of the chair. >> okay. and i assume with the instruction it's recalendarred if there is a decision by the board of supervisors that doesn't over turn decision. >> yes. >> commissioner fung was that the kentucky fried chicken location? >> yes. >> okay. so we have a motion. mr. pacheco if you could please call the roll. >> we have a motion by commissioner hurtado to continue all appeals 5a, b, c, d and to

the board's indefinite calendar and allow the ceqa appeal to go forward on the board of supervisors and awaiting on that outcome. on that motion to continue to the call of the chair. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> vice president absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. all matters are forwarded to the call of the chair for the ceqa review. >> thank you. we have no further business? >> no further business. >> the meeting is adjourned so

to all of you i'm joseph i'm the director of prime care for homeless services and urban higher or speaks louder you still can't hear me. okay. i've joseph with urban house thank you for coming distinguished gifts and staff and community partners and many, many other wlor here today. i can't believe we're here and it's so great to share this

exist day with you and this exciting new chapter in homeless services and a principle care for our most vulnerable co- citizens of san francisco. i'm very happy to have you all here. i'll make a quick program note there is a little reversible in the order just bear with us if it looks like the order is out of order. i wanted to - color to the mike - okay. i want to acknowledge what a shift this is what this day represents for us as a city as a health department and a clinic especially a clinic two clinics that came together to become one. two clinics that were flagship

clinics to provide high quality care and advocacy for our vulnerable residents. we've been innovator long before some of you saw early today in pushing the boundaries and setting higher standards of care for those who have long been overlooked and now we have thanks to the commitment of so many people a beautiful place to symbolize that commitment and the district and respected for the patient we serve. i want to thank all the people and i will do so throughout the program and especially i want to put our patients and a clients front and center. i want to thank you for being with us and entruce us with your

health care it's been exciting to meet you and to hear how excited you are this we've got this space speaker i want to say within the health clinic this has become the urgent health services a very, very long time even before the homeless program and it continues to take care of those who need the care. i think tourists still come to tom when they need help base wear written up in tour guides. we continue to a provided exemplar dental services for those who are fengd that hiv and we continue to a have this beautiful space downstairs have

a strong commitment to provide services in your offer 15 community sites. we have a wonderful office space o pet treatment program that brings recovery right into the preliminary care setting pr we are ahead of the curtain with community based primary care hepatitis care treatment and ahead of the hiv care and we co- run a center of the obsolesce in the tenderloin. through josh about 12 years ago we started or josh started the first medication adherence program for people who are homeless or mentally ill and