[inaudible] clerk go our website and click on the zoom link or you can call in by telephone. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number across the screen. Listen for the Public Comment of your item to be called and dial , 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand to speak. You will have three minutes, and our clerk will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note there is a delay between what is broadcast on t. V. And on live stream or the internet. Please note that you must turn down the volume on your phone or t. V. When you make comments. The chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Now we will answer in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that all those present do not have to answer swear in pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, but to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, you must be sworn in. Will you please rise if you are able and raise your right hand. Do you answer that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . We will now move onto housekeeping matters. Appeal 20068 is being continued, so it will not be heard tonight. Okay. Now is the time for item 1, general Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment . Okay. Lets move onto item 2, commissioner comments and questions. I believe the board of supervisors has nominated a replacement for our body. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. Seeing that theres no Public Comment, well move onto item 3. Adopt of minutes from the october 28, 2020 meeting. President lazarus commissioners, any questions . Commissioner swig no, id like to move to accept. Clerk okay. Is there any Public Comment on commissioner swigs motion to adopt the minutes . Okay. Since theres no Public Comment on the motion to adopt [roll call] clerk okay. So that motion carries, 40, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving onto item number 4. This is appeal number 20061, rose feng versus the zoning administer. Subject property, 1222 funston avenue. Appealing the issuance on september 2, 2020, to woods family investments, l. P. , of a variance decision. The proposal is to demolish an existing onecar garage at the front of the subject property and construct a new fourstory, singlefamily resident. An existing twostory residential building located at the rear of the subject property is proposed to remain. Property code section 132 requires the property to maintain a front yard equivalent to 15 feet. The proposed singlefamily resident encroaches approximately 911 into the required front yard set back, providing only approximately 51 of set back and therefore a variance is required. Planning code section 134 requires the property to maintain a rear yard equivalent to 45 of the lot depth. The proposed building does not extend into the required rear yard, however, an existing second building is located entirely within the required rear yard, such a Development Scenario requires a rear yard variance. The Zoning Administrator granted the front set back and rear yard variances. So as a preliminary matter, commissioner santacana, did you have the opportunity to review the hearing and materials of the meeting which took place on october 28 . Commissioner santacana yes, i did. Clerk okay. We will hear first from the planning department. Mr. Sanchez, you have three minutes. Thank you. Scott sanchez, planning department. Thank you for the opportunity to review this further with the Zoning Administrator. I did so last week and informed him of the comments that were made by the board, and the Zoning Administrator wanted me to put before the board that he was very well aware of the concerns raised by the appellant in this matter, and you really did and he really did his best in a thoughtful approach, and that is why he did approve the condition and modify the certificate as such. They went through the first hearing, had no d. R. The first time around, but the Zoning Administrator did make changes, and those changes were made because of the concern of the appellant. The project was renoticed. Thats when the d. R. Happened, and the Planning Commission felt that those changes were also appropriate and unanimously approved the project as proposed with the revisions that were required by the Zoning Administrator. So i guess what i would add to the Zoning Administrator, i want to be clear in the context here. Im here showing the subject property on our aerial photography. This is a bit unique in terms of the subject property in that it is set so far back from the appellants property, as well. The immediately adjacent properties there to the south are set back, and this is steps in between those adjacent buildings and the other buildings that dominate the block face. Additionally, and also in regards to the height, i believe all the subject buildings on the block face are three stories tall. It has the opposite context on the other side, with four story buildings. So the Zoning Administrator took all this into account with the context of finding it is appropriate. I would like to make one clarification in my testimony to the board last week. I had stated that it may be possible operator 30 seconds. To build from the front wall forward without any set back, and that would not be possible without a variance. The front building wall is within the rear yard, so any construction forward would trigger a variance. Thank you, and im available for questions. Clerk okay. Do we have any questions . Okay. I dont see any questions at this time Vice President honda oh, sorry. I cant remember to use the raise my hand button. So mr. Sanchez, did you speak with the permit holders after our last weeks hearing . I did have a conversation. The permit holders expressed some comments on the feedback the board gave, so i did speak with them briefly after the hearing, yes. Vice president honda and at that point was there any discussion about what we were talking about last week regard to the further development of the outdoor space, meaning the decks . No, i dont believe we discussed the concerns related to the depth. We discussed the concerns to the shadow analysis or lack the there of. I gave him the feedback that the Zoning Administrator reviewed the project and supported the project as currently proposed. Clerk okay. Is there any further comment or questions . If not, well hear from the appellants representative, mr. Morris. You have three minutes. You can hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Let me share my screen. Clerk okay. We wont start the time until youre ready. Okay. Can you see that . Clerk yes, we see that. Thank you. So this is toby morris of crimmins morris architects. There are two basic options keep the cottage as we proposed and seek the front and rear relief to accommodate the new building or demolish the cottage, become code compliant with no variances, and construction two single units. The problem with this approach is we must demolish a portion of the permit holders sorry. The d. R. The appellants cottage. We are limited in this with their new onebuilding scenario, and we are aware that it is unlikely that the Planning Commission would approve the demolition of the one cottage. [inaudible] also in terms of figuring out, well, what is an appropriate size, the assessor records show that there are a third of the lots on this property are the same size as our property, 138 feet deep, have buildings 3800 to 4200 square feet. Our home is 2475 feet of liveable area, 375 square feet of garage, and 800 area feet of the cottage. We did not have time to prepare a full study, but we have had time to share some findings with you, which we sent to the appellant and board on monday. We found that winter and summer conditions remain unchanged. The winter months, when the sun is low in the southern sky, 1228 funston already shows the appellants home and gardens. Similarly, in summer, the sun is high enough in the sky that our new structure doesnt shadow the home. We found the new net shadow occurs in the spring and fall when its cast in the midafternoon, approximately 2 30 to 5 00. Happy to answer any questions or concerns about the shadow analysis. Thank you. Clerk okay. Let me see if there are any questions. Please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any questions. I would just like to clarify, does d. B. I. Want to weighin on this case . I know last time, they only had a few comments. Mr. Duffy . Yeah, i dont believe i dont, its okay, julie. Clerk okay. Thank you. Okay. So i dont see any questions, so we will now hear from the appellant. Miss feng . Hello. Clerk thank you. Welcome. Well start you have a few documents you want to share, i understand . Yeah. I have screen shotting. Can i do it now . Clerk sure. Once you start, well start the time. You have three minutes. Can you see . Clerk yes. Okay. So the proposed building trend will significantly reduce the sun light at 1218 funston analysis. The shadow study provided by the variance owner showed that my sun will be blocked for about 2. 5 hours, from 2 30 to 5 00 p. M. When we are in the Daylight Saving time, the neighbors property received sun light from 2 30 to 5 00 p. M. Available sun light without the building will be about 3. 5 hours. It will reduce about 17 of sable sun light to available sun light to the neighbors facade and 25 of the available sun light to the facade in the spring, summer, and fall. The neighbors front yard received sun light between 12 00 p. M. To 4 00 p. M. As such, the proposed study scan will block 100 of sun light to neighbor cause facade and 60 of sun light to neighbors yard. In addition, even in wipter, when the sun is low in winter, when the sun is low in the sky, theres still some area in the neighbors yard that can receive sun light, and this area would be completely blocked by the building plan. So this building plan would take away the only sun light available to the neighbor during the winter. [inaudible] this is the proposal. And regarding the twin house, actually, this is what happened. The twin house at the rear yard [inaudible] they share the same load bearing wall and foundation. Its unthinkable to demolish one half without affecting the other. Operator 30 seconds. Thats why all the other investors of 1222 funston avenue came to us and see if we want to approve the project. We said no. Thank you. Th that is my presentation. Clerk okay. Well move onto Public Comment. Iff if youre here for Public Comment, please raise your hand. Okay. We have a question from president lazarus. President lazarus thank you. This question was raised last week, and i dont know whether to direct it to mr. Sanchez or mr. Morris, but there was some discussion as to what the shadow impact would be if the structure without the variances would be built. Is somebody able to come on that, understanding that there hasnt been any formal study done . I can show you a little on that if youre interested. Let me share my screen again. So thats why we developed this little model that sort of explains this. So the proposed project is on the left. What were calling the code compliant alternative is on the right. So in the alternative, we maintain a 45 rear yard with the building that lines up at 1222 funston. That happens to be 11 feet west of the facade at 1218 funston. So what happens is were closer to the appellant, and were casting more shadow. What happens with the sun here basically is that as the sun goes across the southern sky, in the morning, the facade of 1218 is in shadow because the sun is behind the facade. Then at noon, the sun peaks at its due south, and it goes across the sky in that gap between the buildings. So if we true this code complying alternative, we actually reduce the gap, and we reduce the period that the sun in the early afternoon p penetrates to miss fungs yard. Thats one of the reasons why i feel this is interior. Clerk okay. Thank you. Okay. We are onto Public Comment, and i see that someone has raised their hand. Mr. Iverson, you have three minutes. Please go ahead. Okay. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Okay. Commissioners, thank you so much for reviewing this again. Theres a lot of work on both sides. I just think in this matter, Thomas Jefferson said it aptly, delay is preferable to error. This building could be downsized, it could still be profitable, and it could be a gem for the neighborhood, one of those raisins in the bread. I think this should be downside. I live at 1255 funston, and i see this project very well. I appreciate your consideration, but the down sizing of this bulky huge structure is not a major problem. I dont see why some sort of down size project option has not been presented. Its just amazing to me. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any other Public Comments, so commissioners, this matters submitted. President lazarus commissioners, somebody want to lead this off . Commissioner swig and honda, y you, i believe, had the most comments. Commissioner honda . Vice president honda yeah, i had a question for the appellants architect. At the last hearing, i was at the point where you are getting exceptions and variances, and the rules for that are pretty stringent. I dont have a problem with the building as it sits, but i think since the project is already benefiting from variances and exceptions, that an n. S. R. Be taken so that theres no additional deck since youve got four stories now. How do you feel about that . Are you voluntarily willing to submit to that . We have absolutely no issues with that. Vice president honda okay. Thank you, mr. Morris. President lazarus commissioner swig . Commissioner swig sure. Thank you, mr. Sanchez, for giving me some context on the location of that of the project because last week, we didnt see what was across the street. Also, two houses on the other side, but you showed an aerial and some houses down the street, which looked like they had stairs into the sidewalk as much as the proposed project. It changed my view. I still think the project is not in total keeping with the rest of the neighborhood but however, by seeing what was across the street, theres less clash. Im going to withdraw, but i do support commissioner honda on the n. S. R. Of the deck issue. President lazarus i was going to say, i understand the sentiment behind the hesitation and the n. S. R. , but as we discussed last week [inaudible] and i guess i lean more towards letting the process play out because they really shouldnt be doing those things any way, and if they were to get started for some reason, the neighbors certainly have the power to go to the Building Department or the planning department, so im quite ambivalent about the n. S. R. Commissioner santacana yeah. Im also ambivalent about the n. S. R. For the same reasons that was laid out, so i dont know how you want to do that. Vice president honda my motion was to allow the appeal, uphold the n. S. R. , and let there be no deck on the property in perpetuity. And thats fine with me. Vice president honda that would be my motion. Clerk okay. So the motion would be commissioner swig sorry, julie. Clerk sorry. Commissioner swig and if that were to go toto, for example, the only difference would be no n. S. R. Clerk correct. The underlying determination would be current law. Commissioner swig okay. I just wanted to make it clear to everybody. Clerk okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to grant the appeal and issue the motion to require the Property Owner to file an n. S. R. To prevent the addition of any decks. And did you want to say last week, you talked about further expansion. You didnt just limit it to decks. You said prevent the addition of any decks or prevent the expansion of the building envelope. Vice president honda no, because i think the expansion would trigger the 311 notification. Clerk okay. On the expansion of any decks. And on what basis is this motion being made . Vice president honda that the property has already benefited from exceptions and variances, and this would stop this this would clerk this would address some privacy concerns . Vice president honda youre so good at making my motions. Clerk and the planning code section 13. 05c . This may be a dumb question, but whats the process for lifting the restriction if they ever want to lift the restriction . Clerk i think mr. Sanchez can weigh in on what it takes to lift an n. S. R. To undo a condition of approval thats since become a condition of approval, you have to go back to the body that imposed it. So i think the process would be if someone were to come in for a Building Permit, and says, they want to build a deck, and the deck cant be build, they would have to go to the board of appeals, and they would have the ability to approve it, modify it, or deny it. Those conditions can only be undone by the board, but thats the process. Clerk thank you. And i guess it would be additional to future boards of appeals, supervisor honda or excuse me, Vice President honda ive already promoted y you promotion or demotion . Vice president honda i dont know which it would be. [please stand by] we are now moving on to the next item. Item number 5. Robin joy versus Department Building inspection. Appealing issuance on september 24th of a site permit. New 185 square foot roof deck over an existing flat roof. This is permit number 20119103235399. Well hear from the appellant first. I believe mr. Patterson is here on behalf of the appellant. He is. This is robin joy. Im also here. Welcome. Thank you very much. Im robin joy. The property in question is 486 duncan street. Its uniquely positioned to my home, perpendicular. I will share my screen so i can share it. I hope to share my screen. Thats not my screen but its probably close enough. So thank you. The screen that is being shown shows the p