duct be 10 feet away from the property line. they are showing penetrating walls. the fire department would never have approved this and the health department housing would never allow a duct shaft. it's not permitable in a shaft. >> you also have to have access to the shaft for the cleanouts. >> what shaft? can you point to the picture? >> the shaft that they are doing is right here and they are showing a clean out in the sheet metal without understanding that they have to have a clean out in the sheet metal and the fire-rated wood

shaft.. they are penetrating what they call a one-hour wall, with a positive air make up for the exhaust fan for the hood . that is a rated wall and they need a fire damper there, in case there is a fire in the system. there is also an issue about penetrating. >> there is something block the overhead. >> i think the shade. >> the way it's folded. i don't know what the problem is. >> this is the penetration through this one-hour wall. it's a tradesmen -- is that better? it's a tradesman exit. they call it a tradesman, but it's a required exit from the rear yard and if you are going to penetrate that with an air intake, you have to have a fire smoke damper there, which is what the fire department would have caught. they also have a penetration

from the restaurant into the entrance into the building. which would have required a fire smoke damper and more or a more important issue, a fundamental issue, they failed to get a permit for change in use from the previous use to a less than 50 restaurant >> thank you. >> and the last thing is what is more important and this is a housing issue, these are the windows. here we show one window, there are five windows in this light well and where they have drawn this shaft is directly in front of a bedroom window. directly in front of a dining window, which is a significant housing complaint in my discussions with rose marie the chief housing official this morning, they said this duct could never be in the shaft. no way, no how. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit-holder now.

>> good evening madame chair lady and good evening members of the board. my name is gus and even as you look at, this we have a lot of contradictions that are occur. now we only came across these citations this evening, at least i did and we had basically no time to respond to them. to make matters worse, you have a citation dated on the 3rd of december. you have another here dated the 4th of december. they are diametrically different. this one is talking about the violation. and this one is talking about a

correction notice. and there is much difference between them. and the violation or the citation that mr. duffy is aware of is the one that is asking for correction. this is the one that we got from here. we just got this a few minutes ago. while mr. boskvich was talking. the issue is whether or not an installation or addition of a hood requires this notification. yes, the zoning administrator and mind you the zoning administrator has authority to make interpretations on the zoning code, as far back as 1996 has interpreted level 3

notification not to require for mechanical equipment additions. what level 3 is what 312 is to commercial or neighborhood-commercial users. basically the zoning administrator has seen it fit to be consistent and make the same interpretation with this particular project. now what we have seen here is first of all, we are disputing that it needed any 312 notification on the current planning code. basically these people would like you to come and address the issue of code amendment here. this was done. they never went there to appeal or comment on it, but bringing it here. it's a fact that the zoning administrator will know that addition of a limited restaurant to a coffee shop

from january of this year has the same definition and therefore need nod needed no notice. it's not a change of use and, in fact it's not an addition. it has been like that from the beginning of the year and done by the city. so we're not coming here to debate that. additioning a hood to the existing coffee shop and limited restaurant. now basically what we are willing to concede here is that yes, the plans as they are drawn, as they are pointed out has some faults. yes, it is not accurate in certain areas, but those areas are so minor like addition of windows. i do not know what they want us to do with that, but we're recommending that we get rid of the 312 notification process which has been taken care of in the last hearing.

and then allow my clients to go back and revise the plans, so that he can work with the city departments to make the necessary corrections, enough for them to approve it. that is all we're asking for, thank you very much. >> excuse me, are you asking for a continuance? >> we are asking a decision on the 31 notification appeal, with is what we have here and we're asking for instruction from you to my client to work with the department, to make the necessary corrections. >> good afternoon. i am a permit expeditor working with the city of san francisco

and a contractor that dealt with this problem -- not the problem, but the inconsistency with the contractor and told them what was going on. let me show you a couple of pictures of the light well. this is a light well, which shows the property line of the next door neighbor, there are two windows here, one window east and west for a bedroom. this green you see is the frame for duct inside this shaft. and the other side of that if you look at the other side, you can see that is the kitchen window. this is one bedroom. this is the other bedroom of it's not blocked. i told the contractor to stop building this wall. it's a huge, humongous wall they built around for protection and i advised them not to continue until i directed them what to do. based on the information that

mr. boskvich was saying, this project -- let me read you the definition of the courtyard." an open and covered space, unabstracted to the sky." this is the definition of the "light well," which is required by building department to provide for light and ventilation for the bedroom. bounded in three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosed devices. now according to the drawing, let me bring the drawing -- do you have that drawing?

>> you have 30 seconds. >> mr. boskvich is saying that this exhaust fan is supposed to be 10' from the property line or from any opening. we know that. this drawing is done in a way that the person who drew this one may not know -- didn't know where to put that exhaust fan, as you can see the exhaust fan. but we have a picture that shows the exhaust fan would be far away from the property line as you can see. in these two pictures, this duct work, the exhaust fan would sit over here, more than 12' from the property line. which means that they jump to the conclusion before we know what they are getting at.

this location, this would be the location exhaust fan sitting -- the only reason these neighbors complain because they don't like indian food. they complain that the smell of food is bothering them. obviously any kind of food you are living in a neighborhood-commercial district, which means you are inclined to have some kind of restaurant in there. one of the tenants lives in a restaurant and she is complaining about the food smell. it doesn't make sense and mr. boskvich says the penetration to the floor from the basement, from the basement to the light well requires fire damper. you cannot put a fire damper in a residential unit with an exhaust fan. it is not required. i talked to lieutenant of the fire department and she says that if you come out the window, where do you go? i

said you end up being in the light well and it's not a rescue window and does not require an exit. light and ventilation required, the window is not blocked at all. as you see in my picture it's going to be less. it's only 17x17". that is all we have and the light well is a 4x11' light well and using only 17x17" and basically means this box. and all of these complains about this small, little thing. if you have any questions, i would love to answer you. >> you are saying that the hood is 17x17"? >> 17x17" >> this much by this much. >> the hood is much larger. >> the duct work. >> okay, thank you.

>> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. i would just like to address briefly the notification and use issues, senior building inspector joe duffy will address the building code issues, restating the arguments that we had at the jurisdiction request hearing a few weeks ago on a previous permit for the subject property and just to restate under the current restaurant legislation, which was -- became effective may 23, 2012 ordinance no. 75-12, and introduced by supervisor wiener and actually was a multi-year or yearlong process. there were several hearingss to the planning commission, land use [kpho-eurbgts/] board of supervisors and also the full board and it did do a dramatic overhaul of legislation, the definitions related to restaurant uses. we used to have multiple

definitions and we tried to consolidate them down. what happens is this used to be under the previous controls considered a coffee shop. now a coffee shop you were able to have sandwiches as along as they were pre-made and serve beverages and under the new legislation become limited restaurants and limited restaurants are allowed to do food preparation and cooking. this addressed the problem that we had coffee shops that had these maybe pre-packaged sandwichs with pastries and bagels, but as soon as they wanted to toast their bagel they went into violation because they were doing food prep. so what the appellants state that starbucks could serve soups and things and that is correct and that was very much the point of the legislation, to do away with archaic controls that had served us well, had served us

for 20 plus years, but now we have a new reality that we're dealing with and these changes went into effect. what that meant that coffee shops that previously did not require notification became limited restaurants, equated to self-service restaurants that would have required 312. it's true that due to the legislation, there is no notice required to intensify this use. that was very much part of the legislation and part of the ideas behind the legislation. i did speak several months ago with the appellant when they raised these issues and explained to them how we were reviewling the matter and no section 312 was required. i understand it to be largely related to the venting and duct work here. we tried to put the partis in contact with each other, the

permit-holder and appellant. i had optimism, maybe apparently unfounded, but i had optimism they could come to some solution and deal with, but had faith if not, the board of appeals would help guide them in that. that smarter that -- that is the matter before the board. i would just say thank you for the opportunity to speak and good luck in your decision and we're available for any questions. >> mr. sanchez, in your opinion, the change that occurred from art gallery to

coffee shop or combined was entitled? >> there was a permit for it, which was the subject of the jurisdiction request and that was issued prior to the change in the zoning. so we believe that based upon the permit history and to be quite honest, it's not a perfect permit history and given also how the work has preceded there, it has raised concerns and i can understand the concerns of neighbors that things may not be built exactly according to plans. that i think the neighbors have a right to be concerned about that and that is why we have this process with the board of appeals that can hopefully resolve these issues. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to start by

clearing up some statements earlier on here by both parties. the notice of violation, which was issued, i believe by housing inspection services, i am not sure how that actually happened. because we have here an active building permit, which is dealt with by building inspection division. it may not mean much to you, but it's under of the purview of the building inspect and building division. if this was signed off and housing services would have got a complaint, they would have gone out there. i don't know how, but i will find out tomorrow morning. i did go there monday or tuesday for a violate visit. monday it was. and just to get myself familiar with the appeal and what was happening and immediately i saw there are problems with this permit and i did issue a correction notice. i was only able to give it to the parties tonight.

but basically my correction notice is saying that the type 1 hood installed under the permit has not been installed in accordance with the plans. egress may be blocked from bedrooms. i did not get into the unit so i'm not sure if the rooms were bedrooms. no elevations were shown on the plans. the permit application was not routed to the fire department for their required review. and i asked them to obtain a permit to install a type 1 hood, the installation and construction shall make the provisions of all of the applicable codes and i want the plans to show clearly the location of the hood and duct in relation to other building elements, the openings, the building elevations, light wells, shaft enclosures and property lines. so there are issues with the permit. i do think a hood could go into

this building. they are 25' wide and there are hoods like this and lots of restaurants in the city that have type 1 hoods and this needs to be designed properly by a mechanical engineer. i advised ahmad of that already. the problem with the light wells, when you put something into a light well, you are pulling something in there in a required area that has to require ventilation and light and that all needs to be calculated out. so putting a duct in in this area could cause problems, but it could be okay if it counts out properly. i think it would be probably better serve in some other area of the building and then it would have to go up on the roof. it would have to be 10' away from property lines. there are other codes for that to prevent the problems of cooking smells and odors.

i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy, when did this notice, with our observations go to the permit-holder? >> i'm sorry, what was the question? >> the items that you mentioned that you found that were perhaps not conforming in the permit documentation, when did that go to the permit-holder? >> just this evening. >> this evening? >> yes. but i did mention it to at the site visit the other day that i would be issuing that? >> those issues (yes, but i don't think we had an opportunity to do an inspection. i just happened to go there because of the appeal. it sometimes helps me to get familiar with these issues. i will be forwarding the correction notice to the district building inspector, who would be responsible for this.

>> among the issues i didn't hear much about the rate of walls? >> i wasn't able to look at that. it is an issue and it needs to have mr. dampers, mr. boskvich is right. there is not enough information on the plans. that all needs to bing be shown on the plans as well. so we need a better set of drawings, basically. >> all of the issues that were raised, and that you found with the situation, the hood are correctable? >> i think so, yes. >> and then as far as the placement, you believe there would be a more optimal

placement of the hood -- i think you said it would prevent the smells, et cetera? >> yes. well, as i said, there was a restaurant and it needs to be designed to meet code and i think it can be if designed properly. >> you said "can meet it ," but i would like to hear more about an alternative placement? >> that needs to be done by a mechanical engineer. i am sure that the permit-holder wants to speak about that. it's going to go up on the roof any way. it has to be 10' way from property lines. with a 25' property you can accomplish that and it can be diverted away from the adjacent buildings. it's pretty strict requirements for that and it's doable.

but we do get a lot of complaints about cooking smells from hoods and vents and the health department does as well. so it does work. it's just got to be designed properly and installed properly. >> would you consider that a rather simple sort of solution to that particular issue, the issue of the smells? >> it should be. i mean, it's done all over the city. we do approve these type 1 hoods in these type of buildings. so i can't see why this would be any different from any other building. it depends on the system that they put in. >> so it doesn't create additional complexity from your experience? >> i have inspected this type of thing before and i have seen it done. so it should be okay to do it if they do it properly and show everything and get a proper set of plans drawn for a

start. the other thing on the drawings, the duct is a little bit constructed differently. i said that on my correction notice. it's sort of not on the same place as it should be in the plans. >> okay. thank you. >> i would like to see a show of hands of those in the room who would like to give public comment on this item? if you could form a line starting on the far side of the podium, that would be great. president hwang. >> how many more matters do we have tonight? >> no. 9. >> the two joint items. >> okay. we'll give them three minutes. >> okay. >> if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, we would appreciate if you could do that either before you come up or after you are done speaking and if you could hand the card to the clerk when you come up to speak. that would be great. >> good evening. my name is angela lopez and

live at 481 guerrero and i'm here today to appeal to your sense of justice and to plead that for one moment you place yourself in our shoes. let me emphasize that i am not against mr. kamal opening up his business and you'll i'm asking that he take the necessary measures to lessen the impact that an industrial hood on our roof will have. without utilizing anything to lessen the noise and vibration levels will definitely -- will definitely disrupt the peace and tranquility in our home, especially that of my mother who suffers from alzheimer's and my brother, who is ill. i want to bring to your attention that we do not have any fire sprinklers in our

building, a wood frame building and opening a restaurant without this safety feature poses a tremendous risk to the tenants. it is important to mention that the hours of operation have never been specified. we like to make sure that the restaurant's hours of operation be limited to those consistent with a predominantly residential building. i ask that before you make a decision tonight, you place yourself in our shoes. what i'm asking is not a whim or a fancy, but a very real and genuine concerns for the safety of my family, my own, and that of the other tenants. thank you. >> which floor do you live on? >> the second floor. >> second floor. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening.

my name is david lopez and angela is my wife. just to reiterate some of the points that she made. our concern is the safety and the quality of life. we're not asking for him to close his business and not proceed, but just that he consider doing things to mitigate the noise and the fumes that are going to be produced once the restaurant is in operation. i mean, we also have safety concerns for everybody that lives in the building, as well as our neighbors in the event that some tragic event does occur. i could say we, unlike the gentleman said, we have nothing against indian food and we welcome the business and to take precaution and consider the tenants and how our lives will be affected when the hood goes up and starts operating. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> hi. i am a tenant at 41 guerrero and live right above where the restaurant would be going, so on the second floor. first i would like to say i like indian food, so i do not have any problem with the smell and i don't think any of us have complained about the smell specific to indian food. anyway, i have significant concern with things with the vent. when they started to build it, i believe that the plans show it it in a different position, they bottle it directly in front of my two roommates windows. i live a -- my bedroom is a little further away, so we immediately complained to them because they were building it a inch from our window and they were just doing construction and start construction at 6:30 and i think