d.r. requester's doubt. the project does not contain an extraordinary circumstances and we recommend the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. president miguel: thank you. the d.r. requester. >> my name is lisa. my husband and i are the owners of the building adjacent to the north and have been there for the past 28 years. the applicant is requesting permission to add a large modern addition to the back of their victorian home as significantly impact -- that significantly impact our properties of light and privacy. first, i want to give you a bit of history about how the architect has dealt with as. in january of 2011, we attended a pre-application meeting for it the architect says to me, " get with it, this is the way it goes in the city. everybody got everybody's life." he said we should synchronizes through global maps so the light will move along the mirror which will give us like in the back area of our house. we were stunned that he would approach us in a di

d.r. requester is mateo garbalatto, the adjacent neighbor to the west, although the d.r. request also references the adjacent neighbor to the east, lenny henson. the d.r. requester's concerns include various items, including the project sponsor submit tall of what the d.r. requester refers to as fraudulent drawings, the history of construction work being done without permit on the property, the enclosure of the void at the rear of the property, at the ground floor, and privacy impacts of the deck along the east property line and the new windows. it is staff's position that it is with the residential guidelines. the d.r. requester's concerns are generally not related to the residential guidelines. staff believes that the project addresses and creggets a number of building and planning code violations, some of which date back five years or more. it is also staff's position that the plans as revised accurately reflect existing conditions at the site. staff's position is that although there has been a history of construction work without permit at this site, that the project i

d.r. requester. excuse me, staff. trying to move it along. there we go. >> good evening again, commissioners. i'm david lindsay from department staff. i'll be presenting this discussion nare review request for a project at 642 hayes street, located between laguna and buchanan streets in hayes valley. before i begin, i should mention that earlier this week, mr. star, the planner assigned to this project, sent out to each of the commissioners a slightly amended report which included the addition of a second name who appeared on the d.r. application. so if any of you require this document, i have a copy here. this project consists of several components, including the addition. a new dwell unit in the ground floor of this three-story, two-unit building, the restoration of a ground floor bay at the front of the building, legalization of the enclosure of what we call the void at the rear of the ground floor that's beneath the second story projection. the removal of exterior stairs along the east property line. the reduction in size of a second story

d.r. requests were filed against the project. the first believes that the proposal is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to its proximity to residences, a day care center, and a church. additionally, the first request your has concerns that the project would bring a negative noise impact and would reduce the availability of parking along fairfield way. as a result of being able to operate until 2:00 a.m. this is going back a bit. the corner property located at the corner of fairfield way and ocean avenue. the second request is the whole association, a neighborhood organization comprised of residents who live within the ingles' side terrace neighborhood, south of the project site and ocean avenue. this group believe the project would not be beneficial to the surrounding residences and businesses. they also have concerns with the project possibly bringing unacceptable noise. loitering and security problems. by being able to operate up to 2:00 a.m. and would impact the availability of on street parking within their n

d.r. requester. it is from the adjacent and never groups. commissioner fung: is that the only notice that is required? >> for the dividing properties across the street and adjacent and also to the right groups. vice-president hwang: getting back to the notice that would go to the property owner, the jurisdiction request for, -- requester, you said it would not give the names of tenants that it is not occupied by the owner. does each tenant in the building get a notice in their mailbox or how does that work? >> good question. there are two for processes. the various process is owners within 300 feet. we get the owner information from the assessor's office. it goes to their proper mailing address. for the section 312 notice, it goes to owners within 150 feet as well as occupants. four occupants, it says occupant and has the apartment number or whatever it may be. vice president hwang: so each unit would get its own notification. when did that one go out? >> that was for the full month of march. >> mr. duffy of. -- mr. duffy. >> i would like to

d.r. request. commissioner antonini: make it possible by that to happen by a future owner but not have that required. >> is that -- commissioner antonini: that is pretty much it. >> if there is no further discussion, on the motion -- to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the urging of the current project sponsors to turn the building back into two units at some future need and urging. not a requirement, and urging. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: no. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. president miguel: no. >> that motion fails. commissioner borden: i make a subsequent motion to take d.r., approved the project, and any future owner would have to -- you want to say something? >> if you're going to classify this as rh2 it would be tantamount to a rezone. commissioner borden: in the building as it is represented in the zoning maps carried out on the sale, anybody who buys the property realizes that it is representative of two units. i

d.r. request. commissioner antonini: make it possible by that to happen by a future owner but not have that required. >> is that -- commissioner antonini: that is pretty much it. >> if there is no further discussion, on the motion -- to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the urging of the current project sponsors to turn the building back into two units

d.r. request that we filed. the business was asking to extend hours from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. you maintain the 8:00 p.m. closing hours. for the same reason, we ask that you deny this permit application given the fact of this business will be open until 2:00 in the morning. with noise, people milling about outside, music, it is inconsistent with the neighborhood and it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. there is no of street parking, so cars are likely to be parked inside the neighborhood, inside the area where fairfield is, and people in the early morning hours are 1 to be going to and from cars, disrupting the neighborhood, interfering with the quiet neighborhood and people's ability to sleep. we are asking, given the fact that the general plan and zoning code requires that uses in every commercial areas the consistent with, sir, and not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, to deny this permit application. thank you. president fong: speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> are you speaking in favor? >> yes. i have been living in balboa terrace for the past 4

i would request respectfully that you take d.r. and approve with conditions some of the other conditions we're proposing that were left off the deck, the project sponsor had promised they would remove it to well over a year ago. it looks into one of our bedrooms. it is illegal. condition no. 5 would be to construct the windows on the north side elevation to the scale in the drawings. no. 6 would be for the window should not be constructed in-that resio step over the windows themselves and use the roof of the legal structure, current legal structure as a makeshift desk. condition no. 7 would be to reduce the size of the illegal construction by four feet so there could be a passageway for purposes of fire access. the fire department came, i had to let them go through my property and they were shocked to find that there. they did not know it was there and they'd said this was a fire hazard. you can only have 18 inches to be able to go through. condition no. 8 would be that the west side collation should be free of windows and the wood

requested it may be here to speak at public comment. the application was subject to section 312 about this, but she did not file d.r. during that period there was -- during that period. there was a question about the requirement to create mailing labels for the abutting properties. there is a question whether or not that is an appropriate requirement. i want to make the commission aware of that. that is all i have to report. >> the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. prior to their mission, the arc committee did meet. the item of interest there was the boat house. the item had come before the commission prior. the commission gave a suggestion on how they could improve their product. they went back and pretty much inc. all the suggestions of the commission. they just brought it before the a.r.c. commission with their review and comment. the commission was pleased with what they have done so far with the boat house -- the boathouse. they also had a regular election of officers. the president and vice president kept their seats. they will be president and vice president for this current year. superviso

d.r. requestors, you have a two- minute rebuttal. >> speaking on behalf of the homes association, i want to clarify a couple of things, and _ the real import of our request to you. -- underscore the real import of our request to you. we are not against cool -- pool. the problem we have is the late night hours proposed for this. that relates to the parking. late at night, people parking in the neighborhoods are going to be disruptive of the neighborhood. as far as the position of the association goes, we are very concerned about the hours, the late hours. on this block, it is quiet. there is no bar. the bar is further east. this is a very quiet block. and we would like to keep it that way so that it is consistent with the immediately surrounding neighborhood. finally, if you do elect to approve this permit application, we would ask the you impose conditions, but those conditions be related to the hours, that you restrict the hours if you grant the permit application, and that you incorporate into the permit the conditions which the product sponsor has volunteered, relating to the security matters, and also to ensure there is neither distribution or consum