very high-cycling traffic neighborhood. you have done an excellent job in the city of marking the roads. i am also a cyclist and i greatly appreciate that. i light up my cycles and many cyclists light up their cycles, but for drivers to seek parking such as myself it's a challenging thing do so the aspect of having additional parking in the neighborhood could certainly make the neighborhood a safer place and that is one consideration i wanted to put before the board with this project, which is something that necessarily hasn't been brought before you. i know that i have sought rental parking in the neighborhood and haven't been able to find it and that is something that most people talk about when looking at renting and living in the lower haight. it's a fantastic neighborhood, but parking is at a premium. it's wonderful if people have off-site parking and i know it's a real challenge to find. another factor as well -- thank you is that the -- my

understanding is that it's non-combustible building with sprinklers inside. thank you for your time. >> thank you. if you could fill out a speaker card, that would be helpful. is interest any other public comment? seeing none, you have rebutal, if you would like to use, it you have three minutes. >> thank you. i never had a complaint about anybody that stays in that building other than the cigarettes that were thrown around that david has resolved. the fact that's group housing is notice an issue. group housing is a fact. the question is this variance

still valid? it does not stipulate for a garage for group housing. i do resent hearing that everybody else is the cause of the delay on the garage. i filed an appeal in 2007. it's 2012, i have not filed an appeal. i have not -- i was part of the discretionary review on the house and that was out of the concerns that we had in neighborhood because of past behaviors as a hotel and where that group housing might go with because it does allow one-week stays. so i think it was a valid concern of the neighborhood. it was a concern. i just think that nobody has really taken a look at this garage. this has been dragging on. he has had that variance since

2005. he has gotten time back for any appeal or any discretionary review. he has not -- david has not lost time because of those processes. he lost time because he didn't build when he had the chance. he choose to do something else. and this is where we are now. it's dragging on for me, because i have to live with the idea that that garage may still go on the side of my house. and it's going to be noisy. and it is very large. i worry more my house, the stability of my house and i worry for the enjoyment of my house. because it is going to make noise. even the claus literature mentions it should not be built in the dwelling. it's one inch away ands into

insulation. it's simply clavered and plaster and lathe. that is all have i to say. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. gladstone, you have six minutes. >> thank you. well, first of all, commissioner fung asked about some of the delays. between the time for example i think, the commissioner mentioned that parking variance was obtained in 2005. and the group housing permit was sought, or between the time that the variance was issued and the build permit for the garage was submitted. there are several reasons for that. first you have heard about some of the clients issues on health, but more important, you know, there were a series of appeals there. and sarah of the planning department determined that she would not allow -- she would not accept to process a garage permit, commissioner, until the group housing thing had been

determined to be okay. and that was only determined, as you know, in february of 2012. so it was only in 2012 that my client was told that the city would process a permit for the garage. because of that group housing allegation without permits because of the many allegations and appeals before that. i think that is really important to keep in mind. you know, there will be a 311 notify case, if you can turn on this overhead. and the 311 notifification, if it goes out tomorrow will show that this major parking garage, that neighbors talk about, is is this this little 17' addition here. that the planning department has determined to be historically appropriate. through a special review. the reason that my client is doing stacking is that without doing stacking he can't keep it so small as he wanted to because of miss stott's

apartment here. and because of historical reasons. he needs to keep it small. that is why he is stacking. it's not a huge parking garage. mr. sanchez said it was troubling to him that while the garage permit was submitted in 2008, another one was submitted in 2010. i didn't know that but my client just complained tos me because of all the money appeals he didn't realize his 2008 garage submital was still in effect, but still pending and hadn't been revoked or hadn't been terminated as an application. so he submitted one in 2010. when he realized that it was a second one, he withdrew the 2010. and so i think that will explain to the zoning administrator why the records shows that a garage permit was

submitted as late as 2010. it was first submitted in 2008 and that is the one that is still pending. our office wrote sarah of the planning department on june 18 of this year. indicating that the 311 notification should go out. that the plans have been deemed code complying. and that was held. we don't understand all of the reasons it was held. she sent out four letters to the project sponsors saying there is something that i don't understand in the plans. you are will have to claire if this. you have to clarify that. normally in my 20 years a planning staff indicates to a project sponsor that there is

information needed, questions, in one letter, sometimes two. that is called notice of requirements. and it asks the project sponsor for additional information, additional notes on plans, answering questions about a number of things. four were sent out. four were sent out but for all of those, we believe that the 311 notification could have been sent out in may of this year and thus, any dr hearing that would have been held would be held by now. we officially notified planning that we would like the 311 to go out in june. june 18th we notified planning. it didn't go out. and then it didn't go out for the reason of the appeal tonight. so i just want to emphasize that my client is human. he has a condition. there may have been times when

he couldn't be as diligent as he wanted to be, but he wanted to be at all times. and if there was delays by my client, they were minor. they were one of three, and the least of three reasons for these years' of delay. the primary reason was continuous neighbors' appeal. one more thing, one more reason, commissioner about that extra two-year delay and i remember it. it's because during that time, sarah spssvelle and the city attorney could not determine to legalize what was happening at this building my client should file a permit for sro or group housing. or something else and that something else would have been tourist hotel. there were a number of discussions about the codes, about the legality, about the

facts, about the leases. for city staff, the city attorney and us to determine whether the appropriate approval to seek was sro tourist hotel and group housing and finally it was determined group housing and that is where we are. i thank you. >> one question. go ahead. you go first. >> you stated that the november 26th date doesn't work because it's almost impossible to do what needs to be done to meet that deadline. >> like. >> your colleague [khrao*-eg/] was making an argument about further accommodation based on your client's disability and i'm not sure, is it a combination of reasons or is there a predominant reason that november 26th doesn't work? >> factually, november 26th doesn't work for the following reason. if the 311 notification goes out tomorrow, and i don't know if can. if all of the envelopes have been posted and mailed, with

mailing stamps and everything. tomorrow is the 25th. 30 days go by. >> i understand how you figured that. but that seemed to be one theory about why the 26th doesn't work and i thought i also heard that further accommodation was needed for your client for disability reasons. >> no, the further accommodation argument as i heard it from the attorney was that if you find that my client's delays were the primary reason for delays over these number of years, she suggests that the laws might inhibit you from placking that finding given that, well, i think it's factual not true and there are disability laws. he has a disability, that would

affect a finding his delays were delays that were inappropriate and it didn't relate specifically to the third deadline of november 26th. >> counselor, out of the 15 rooms or 15 tenants, how many have cars? >> i don't know that fact. i will have to ask my client. why don't you come up? >> i believe that three or four of them have cars. ellen, who spoke earlier has a car and i believe there are two or three others of of the vast majority use public transportation. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? you also have six minutes. >> thank you. scott sanchez [phr-rplts/]. planning department. in 2007 there was a building

permit filed to document the legality of the building as a 3-unit building and that permit was never pursued and subsequently abandoned. there 2008 there was a building permit filed to again allow construction of the garage in the rear yard. and we did say we were going hold that until the [o-urpblgts/] question of outstanding question of the violation was dressed. in may of this year, a building permit application was filed in 2012, not 2010, for the garage. and staff was reviewing, we had a 2008 building permit for the garage and 2012 building permit for the garage and i believe on both mr. nales was listed as the licensed contractor for the project, at least according to the building permit records. and the 2012 permit did not

match what was in the 2005 variance. so this kind of what mr. gladstone was talking about, maybe some confusion on the planning department's side, between may and july/august of this year because we had two permits from the project sponsor. which differs for the same scope of work. and so we were finally able to resolve that with them. that was not an error on planning department's side. i think it was an error on the project sponsoring's side and didn't count that in terms of giving them additional time. they did withdrew that permit and i think it was canceled in august of this year, the end of august. then at that time we were geting into august, august 10th was the deadline that we had set from the second extension. and so we said you need to come in for a new extension request and make your argument why it should be extended.

because i didn't feel like the fact that they submitted a building application was adequate grounds for extending that 250 variance. i tried to be very reasonable in making a decision and included everything that we could include in terms of appeals and in terms of pales on the probing, there was an appeal on the original build permit application, which came to this board. that was an appeal by the neighbors. there was a discretionary review requested by the neighbors on group housing regarding concerns of the group housing use and legalizing that. we got to the point of issuing the permit for the group housing use, and the project sponsor refused to pay the fees that we had assessed, because as our standard practice and the planning code allows to us assess time and materials that we spend abating a complaint. so we assessed that and went to small exclaims court. we won. and set up a payment plan, the

permit was subsequently issued. that is where we are today. so hopefully that maybe clears up some of the matters. as to the curb cut, i don't know if that is legal. i did see from google street view there is no mta logo and it's actually painted white. so i don't know if it's legal or not. i can certainly pass that on to our colleagues at department of power, to see if that is a curb cut that was done illegally. but other than that, i'm available for any questions. actually, i'm not sure if mr. nale lives at the property or not. i don't know if that is a fact that has been raised. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> we have two matters that we're -- okay? >> correct. one is the appeal, the zoning administrator's extension to november 26th. >> they are both actually appeals. >> and the other is to not -- >> they are both objecting to the date. >> okay. but for different reasons. and desired outcomes, yes. that is right. >> okay. there is actually one additional point of view that was brought up when the counselor for permit holder was talking about what could or could not be done. or here in terms of decisions. there is one additional and

that is given the timeline, i find that the zoning administrator has made significant accommodations to the permit holder/appellant and the timing for that things that exceeds a lot of what i have seen historically and based on experience in this city. and therefore, i think the accommodations have been extremely extensive on the part of the za. >> it appears that way to me as well. >> any comments? then i'm going to uphole the zoning administrator's, establishing the extension to

november 26th. and to deny the appeal to extend that and deny the appeal to reduce it. >> is that on the basis that the zoning administrator already made significant accommodations. >> significant accommodations, yes. >> so the motion is then to uphold the letter of determination. >> that is correct. >> on the basis that the zoning administrator has already made significant accommodations to the property owner. >> correct. >> >> on that motion to uphold this letter of determination, that is from the vice president. president hwang is absent. >> commissioner hurtado?

>> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0 unithis lo did is upheld. >> thank you. there is no further business. >> vice president fung? >> we are adjourned. >> we are adjourned.

shortly. >> chair kim: good afternoon. welcome to our regular rules committee for november i am joined to my right by vice chairkz;t#oñ supervisor ferrell. and we will be joined by supervisor@oju]?v campos. the committee would like tosi$b acknowledge the staff at sfgtv,l >jennifer. >> linday> chair kim: thank you. please call item 1. >> linda wong: hearing to consider appointingz(gxóg"ñ oner term ending march 31, 2014,qñe1

the commission on the aging advisory council. there is#co÷xy one seat vacant. >> chair kim: katherine rose russo, please come up. this format will stay the same, also for item 2 which is the veterans affairs commission. we ask you to briefly talk about your experience as it relates to the position for which you are appointed to or which you are applying to. if we have questions we will ask them and also priorities and goals you would like to set out if appointed to this body. >> my name is katherine russo. this is a reappointment to the advisory council on the commission on aging. obviously, my age, i qualify as a senior to serve on it. my background, i've been a

jer entolling. i try to be active on different community committees because as a member of the advisory council, it is my responsibility to be aware of the needs and questions and occurrence of seniors, and people with disabilities in the area where y live. and i try to keep that responsibility in mind. i'm

>> chairgmñ? kim: thank you. and by the way, thank you for correctingcbñ?ñ? me, this is a reappointmentybñbx by sean le d burn. we have no questions so we'll open it up for public comment. if there is public comment for this item please step up. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor ferrell. >> supervisor farrell: i want to thank you for coming forward and for your service and for what is going to be hopefully your continued'r67d)> chair kim: we have a motion, and we can do that without opposition. thank you. >> thank you. >> chair kim: madam clerk, can you please call item 2. >> linda wong: hearing to considering appointing three

31, 2016 to the veterans.qñ?ñ? s commission. there are three seats and eight applicants. >> chair kim: three seats and eight applicants. is that1÷ñ?ñ? correct? >> linda wong: that's correct. >> chair kim: thank you. so we will be hearing the applicants in the order that you are listed on our agenda today. so we will begin with anthony ay alfidii. prepare to come up front. and we have a number of great9-] applicants. i just want to say in advance, thank you so much. it's so great tokeññcec@ have sh interest in our veteran affairs commission because it is a very important body in the city and county of san francisco, and in particular as we have more veterans coming to the city and county, we certainly want to make sure that we are able to have a strong body that's available to advise the city on what we can do to assist our veterans who have served this

country so graciously. i want to thank everyone1"58y ts applied. it will be a difficult decision for this committee because there are only three seats open. i want to thank you in it advance. i will call anthon anthony alfi. >> linda wong: he indicated he does not wish to seat for reappointment, and therefore he wishes to withdraw his application. >> chair kim: i missed that note. we will move on to lee burnette and creighton reed who has let us know he will not be able to be here today. mr. burnette. thank you. it's the same format as with the previous item. >> okay. hi. i am lee burnette. i'm a veteran and a student at city college. i served five years in the navy. moved here to start school, and

actually i've been very surprised and happy with san francisco. it's one of the most veteran friendly towns i've been to and i appreciate that. i feel i'm good for the position because since i've been at city college, i was elected the veterans club alliance. i was elected one of the officers there. and basically with that, we do pretty much everything, helping veterans get contacted into medical care, their education, housing, everything, even their finances, and things. so that's a big issue. also, i'm a volunteer at david chiu's office. and when i met david, he told me i could work on a passion project. honestly the biggest thing in the city and this state, you know,ñ?ñ? since the wars have

started, we've had mor?ñ?ñ vets coming home and committing suicide thanúçñ?ñ? dying overse. so i've actually joined a3sñ?ñ nonprofit called life for veterans, and that's -- what we want to target is not just helping veterans when they call in, not jump off the ledge, but also giving them outlets and jobs, and housing. so we've made a couple of contacts in napa valley and we have wineries that are going to be supplying housing and job training for these veterans. so it's more than just -- more than just therapy. that's what i feel i can bring to the commission. thank you. >> chair kim: thank you very much. creighton did let us know he would not be here, in case he's

here. not seeing him. david adams and mary tramil. >> thank you for having me here today. i started out as a kid in the boy scots and also house of -- and auction i wil auxilliary coh school. i started out with the public leadership and went into the army for six years. i came to san francisco, been i am on post 34. 6?ñ? i used to be on sunday for veterans to come and eat and get clothing. and been promoted to provostá?? marshal. third semester, i'm a police officer there. the other thing is i