tv [untitled] December 16, 2013 4:00am-4:31am PST
articulate again or if you have it. >> i would like it articulated. >> that the property line separating 1050 velencia from the marsh to have 5.0 acoustical value. >> that is slightly less than what is required for commercial. >> no, slightly more than what is required for residential. >> significant. >> okay. >> what was on the roof, on the second floor deck? >> the second point was to create a planter as a buffer on the side of the second floor roof deck. adjacent to the marsh.
>> okay. >> and then in respect with the conditions. >> mr. teague, you don't like that? please come forward. >> i actually, it's for the previous condition. i just wanted to add something for thought in case you wanted to address it further. i think there is a recognition that a loss of space may result in a loss in number of units, and this could impact how much affordable housing is required or if affordable housing is required when this project began. the trigger was five or more dwelling units. but prop c which passed november, 2012 changed that trigger to 10 units. a 12-unit building having one of its four residential floors removed it's not crazy to think that wouldn't come in under 10 units. and then no affordable housing
is required at all. potentially there is a procedure ago through to get to that point. i don't know if you want to qualify your conditions with that in mind. because the affordable housing issue was brought up so much, i want to keep that in context of the massing and that goes back to the comment of mass and dwelling units. i wanted to be sure that context was raised again. >> i wonder if that can be addressed with a determination that the dwelling unit number must be sufficient to include at least one affordable unit. is that something that we can do? robert? >> well, i think the affordable housing unit is something that with the mayor's office of housing. >> can you speak up. >> i think the affordable housing unit requirements as we
heard before falls in the mayor's office of housing and the planning commission and the charter. i am not sure that is something that we can compose with the permit condition. >> the permit condition could be in the affordable housing requirements ensuring that at least one is part of this design. >> you kn know what i am saying? >> i am not sure, i heard what mr. ortega, that you may lose efficient number of units that fall in housing requirements. so no, i am not clear on what you are saying. >> i am sorry if i not clear and this might be just -- i am throwing it out there. current design has 12 units. 12 dwelling units with two
contemplated, two of those units being affordable on-site. if the design were changed such that the top floor is gone. the number of dwelling units will be reduced. but the types of dwelling units and the mix, the size, if it's number of units that is at issue. with respect to the requirements under the affordable housing law. then you are talking about numbers of units mu units. we are not talking about size and mix. so you can reduce the size or change the mix to ensure that the existence of one of those dwelling units, at a minimum one unit to be affordable unit. that's my point. >> i don't think -- >> i am talking about it as a concept. i am trying to understand that something, whether anyone agrees is another question. >> that's the problem, there are
potential conflicts. if you want to prioritize the scale as a major issue here, well, something has to give. >> right. >> so -- you know. >> i have to say -- >> can that still make it financially rewarding to the developer and if they use an affordable unit, the marsh is happy and the neighborhood is happy but the affordable housing project is not. he was not guaranteeing them anyway, so there is not an issue here. >> that wasn't an issue for me anyway. the question of affordable housing versus inplace is a circular argument and never been answered. >> i agree. >> i have to say that knowing people that had bmr units it's not actually that affordable,
truthfully. it isn't. i mean you still have to pay the h oa fees. that keeps going. it's not really affordable. >> well, i have one for sale now. >> sorry, we won't talk about that. i think i am more concerned about the size of that property in that location. >> i agree. >> okay. okay. so just moving on to the other proposed conditions. i would also as part of the motion add as conditions, and i don't want to read these. into the record if we could have this document be submitted. >> right. and we would also have as part of the motion findings and conditions to be adopted. >> these would include no. 1, 2, 3, on the first column. no. 4 on the second column.
i think we went with no. 5. and we also as part of the motion would include the proposed time -- >> no, i thought we said 5 was too vague. >> no, 6 and 7. was 5 too vague for you? >> i think it was too vague. >> okay for purposes -- >> no, not 5. >> okay. i am okay with that, i think it's written in a vague manner. >> 5 is out? >> 5 is out. then the next condition would be -- there is not a number but construction time limitation as proposed by the marsh as part of the motion. and i think that's it. >> the last item is a notice of special restriction to record all of these conditions.
>> thank you. >> you would like to add that? >> correct. >> and so the motion then is to grant the appeals and issue these permits on the conditions stated but with the adoption of findings at a later time, is that correct? >> right. >> okay. >> do we want to accept or request proposed findings from the party? >> i think that would be helpful especially with respect to the language on no. 4. that would be helpful. >> could i ask one clarification. when we say that the project is too large for the location. i am assuming that is because of the impact on the historical nature of the neighborhood and aesthetics? the project is too large for the location, i am trying to get at
what that means? does that mean that it adversely impacts the historic nature of the neighborhood or aesthetic quality of the neighborhood? >> it affects the residential guidelines posed in the eastern neighborhood legislation. i wouldn't tie it to historical nature. >> yeah. >> i like commissioner fung's language. >> i do too. okay, that's kind of a joint motion, a group motion. but -- >> victor, is that clear to you? >> yes. >> such a rock-star, victor. >> got it, great. >> so again, the motion still by the president. and it's to grant both, grant all the appeals and the permits shall be conditioned with the conditions as read into the
record. and the three major issues were that the fifth story shall be removed. that the party wall along the appellant's property line would have a 50 dba value. and with the planter system to be installed at the roof deck of the appellant's property line. and again with the adoption of the conditions in the appellant's exhibit read into the record. and with additional findings to be adopted at a later time. >> there was a request to allow the parties to submit draft findings. i ask that the board do so the thursday prior to the scheduled hearing. >> conditional approach. >> yes, and let's schedule this, we have next week or we could -- >> i think some additional time is needed to prepare the
findings. >> january 15th. how about january 15th? because january 8th is packed. >> i think that's fine. do you want -- do you want to allow additional briefing or just submittal of findings? >> i think submittal of findings. >> this is a fairly significant provision i think you should allow them to submit for briefing. >> in the past we sent out a rescheduling letter. if you are not prepared to schedule this, when the proposal is written, either with the hch -- with the city attorney or staff, we get rebuttals. >> there is a process in the
findings of the findings drafted by the board. >> i think it's a three-page rebutt rebuttal. >> fine. >> if the board is ready to schedule. >> let's schedule it. >> okay. so again on that motion to grant all appeals by the president to remove the fifth story of this project. to make modifications to the party wall. with the 50 dba value, and with the planter system at the roof deck and conditions read into the record and adoption of additional findings on january 15. on that motion, commissioner fung. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0. the permits are conditioned with
all of those conditions and we shall have an adoption of findings on january 15. >> okay, we will take >> welcome back to the december 11, 2013, san francisco board of appeals. and now moving to item 6, appeal 13-133, karen galves, subject property 1150-1152, geneva avenue, protesting the issuance of october 10, to christ c. christ and this is on the hearing tonight and to the appellant with seven minutes. >> hi, my name is karen galves,
and i live at 1143 geneva avenue and this has been my family's home next to the property on e geneva. today i request that you protest the issuance of christ for installing of a half bath. and i had no option to voice my concerns prior to the building permit. i felt like filing an appeal was the only opportunity i had to voice my concerns about the project. i have something to put in the overhead. face up -- right.
there it is. okay. i know it's small and a pol -- apologize. it states that a light well is different from another location that 3 light well is required. and this is the copy of the zoning administration. i will put in a picture that was given to me by mr. christ as part of his presence. and his light well is clearly visible to off-site locations, and why i feel that this has been done. to give you history, mr. christ contacted me by telephone on
september 20 and asked me to meet him on the following day. on saturday he said that his contractor said to discuss with me as a courtesy and mr. christ gave me the project and stated that he had to have permits to do this work. his comment was, give me a break. and he said that he didn't want to get a permit to save money. and i stated the importance of putting a permit and that his contractor was to start the work on monday. and this was a red flag as that was two days away. and then i received a permit from dbi. and this is a copy of the permit now. while reviewing application there were obvious discrepancies
that stood out to me. mr. christ told me that he was going to use a contractor. but on his application he listed himself as contractor of the project, in box 14. and mr. christ's response he states that he is using a contractor. but in notice to appellant, he marked no. 4 (inaudible) issue (inaudible) of california. sorry about that. and if he intended to use a contractor, i thought that no. 5 should have been checked. i certify as the owner through the agent that the performance of the work for which this permit is issued i will employ a
contractor. i do not believe that mr. christ has the necessary skills or knowledge to perform this work, and since he does not reside at property, i question an issuance of an over-the-counter building permit. i am concerned without the proper permits and the without the use of a licensed contractor, the project will be completed and not to code. i feel that mr. christ has chosen the area to add a half-bath that will be detrimental to me property. i will put in a picture of the light well from my house and a portion of his. i could not find on the drawings provided to me the height of the proposed half bath. but in mr. christ's response he says that the roof of the
addition will be four feet below my bath window, that means a foot of my light will be blocked. this is the source of light to the side of the house, if any blockage of the light, i feel there coulding unhealthy air flow that could cause air to the light well. water currently flows from the light well of 1152 geneva to a down spout that is not working properly. let me put a picture of that here. in the rainy season about 50% of the water misses the down spout from flows freely to the ground. you can see there is a small area here that directs the water and an opening on the side here where a portion of the water
runs. based on my interpretation of the drawings that i received, the proposed new addition will have a slanted roof that will send additional water running into his light well that does not have proper drainage. i feel that the overflow of this water will drain into my space in the houses, that could cause damage to the foundation of my property. i will show you one more picture here [bell] this is a picture of the light well from my backyard. which shows that mr. christ is all right diverting water away from his property towards mine by the use of the awnings over the door and over the window. i feel that unless these issues
are addressed [bell] the drainage issues and that notification should have been done. i am concerned about the integrity of the project and since he was doing the projects without contractor he is misrepresenting to me or dbi who is performing the work and i feel it would be detrimental to my property. >> mrs. galves, that window that goes to your bathroom, is there a window below that? >> no, there is a small roof area. >> which is where your light well terminates. >> yes, he plans on going above. >> i understand.
>> hear from the permit holder. >> my name is christ c. christ, my son and my other son is owner of this property. i am at a loss at what is being said, but so be it. we wanted to approve the party at the apartment by adding this half bathroom. it's a 1250 square foot unit with formal dining room. it's three bedroom. and there has been a request from previous tenants that it would be nice if there was a half bathroom. in any event we thought this would be the time to do it. issues aside about what i said to her, well, trying to save money or so forth. the fact is that i went out and
obtained a builder's permit. it's my notion that the owner of the property can act as a contractor obviously. obviously not to do electrical or plumbing work, which i can't do it. i do carpenter work but i was going to hire a contractor to do the carpenter work. the installation of this 4 x 6 unit. the top of the unit if it's approved is almost a half story below the window. the bathroom window she is talking about. if we look at that photo in the material that i submitted, that would be 2-a.
i got it here. i got it here. the top of the unit is going to be below that corrugated plastic, and you see how far her bathroom window. that's a half-story high. and when this is located it nowhere interferes with sunlight. doesn't bother the neighbor. the appellant, i can't see how it bothers or takes anything away from the value of her home or causes her any problems. i am at a loss with that issue. and the other issue about the noise and the other issues regarding the structure, that unit. and i don't know what else to say about it.
i feel that this is on our property. the water that comes off that well, comes on to the roof of my property and drains off. all of those years, say since the building constructed in 1925, that is how it existed. water from there drains off on the side, looking at that same photo. and then it drains down on a slope to my yard, my backyard. now you can see this -- if it's approved, this half-bathroom, the neighbor the appellant would have to stand at the rear of her backyard to be able to see it. in other words it's unobtrusive. it's 4 x 6 and will serve a good
purpose. and i am not thinking of doing any to belittle her or take away the value of her property. or something that would be unsightly. and i don't know what else i can say about it. but i am open to questions. there is some drain in ancillary graffiti and item, and i checked and going through the records and no record. and when i was apprised it of and i went and painted it myself. and my neighbor offered to paint it. in any event, when i learned about it, i took care of it.
it shouldn't be (inaudible) to her and the neighbors. i don't know what else i can say about this. we have had an excellent relationship and i see something here i can't understand. because i don't think there is any merit in all the point that he brought o:-that she brought out, the noise and odor and the devalue -- actually to obstruct the natural sunlight. that's not the case, not the case. >> thank you. >> i have a question for you, sir. the existing drain line that comes down from your existing wall and then it looks like there is another drain that goes down to the grade, does that go
into, hit a sidewalk? >> this grade line? >> no, the one that drains your existing roof right now. where you want to add the -- the thing on top. >> yes. >> there is a drain there and a line below it that goes further down towards the sidewalk. >> i don't know where it goes down, because that's an office down below it. >> it goes inside the building? >> no, that's the end of the building there. >> right. so it goes down. does the water come out of that drain on to the sidewalk? or does it go into a sewer line? >> it goes down -- that goes to, goes down to as far as the roof is below this. that goes down. i think it's cut off. i think it's cut off. i don't know that. because downstairs where the office is, there is no pipe.
there is no drain or pipe coming -- coming through. >> okay. >> so this -- this light, this window is so far out. this would be the roof of the proposed half-bathroom here. >> i understand. okay. we will let the building department address the code aspects of that. >> i can't add anything else. like i say, we have had a good relationship. there is something else i can't put my finger on, in any event. >> owned the property for many years -- sorry, we have owned the property for many years, and we are taking care of it diligently. we are not absentee landlords.
>> 74 -- 94. >> sorry, i am christopher christ. >> thank you. >> you can take a seat and you will have time for rebuttal if there is anything else to add. >> good evening, corey teef, there are concerns with this permit, based on the plans approved. the first issue is that it doesn't appear that the plans adequately show the neighbor's light well onsite plan. it's a small light well but it's set back and one that is not shown. that is somewhat relevant, as the appellant mentioned there is an interpretation from the zoning administrator. that is found in