Okay. President lazarus, did you have something in. President lazarus no. Clerk okay. So we are now going to move onto the permit holders, miss busterud and mr. Videbaek. You have seven minutes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you to everyone, and thank you for your time. We all saw some of these photos, but im going to go ahead and share my screen just to frame the frame the conversation a little bit more . Clerk why dont we start the time when you actually start your presentation. Ill start talking. Clerk no, thats fine. You dont have to start talking. At this point, when you get your presentation up, thats when well start the time. Okay. I rye set your clak. I i reset your clock. So this permit was issued legally and appropriately. We believe that mr. Lynns concerns about the light, privacy, and the noise impacted about the proposed deck are unsubstantiated and do not violate the planning policies. Given the existing structure that the proposed structure would replace, the pergola, there would be no impact to light from the proposed deck. There is no blocking of light from the existing structure, that pergola. This is illustrated visually in the photos in our brief which also include a mock up photo of what the edge of the deck would look like which showcases that theres no impact to light or air. The concern about the proximity of this deck to his property we believe to be overstated. The proposed deck will not give any additional or clear views into mr. Littons property as it is both further away and higher up than our current patio and dining room window. So one of his Major Concerns was that we would have additional views into his building, into his back yard, but actually this deck would have a worse angle of view into their property, so we believe this concern is moot. We actually believe that he agrees with us on this point. On march 8, mr. Litton entered our property with another person without our permission or without notifying us that he was on our property. Our security cameras recorded the two men discussing the deck proposal and mr. Littons friend or colleague who was with him stated that our current patio and dining room already have a direct view into their property, to which mr. Litton agrees. The first and only time that we met mr. Litton in person was during our Neighborhood Outreach meeting which took place on june 25, 2019. During this meeting, he stated his concerns about privacy and light, both of which were noted and included in our discussions with the Planning Department. We offered to discuss potential concessions, like privacy screen are or permanent plants on the deck. We were not contacted by mr. Litton about the deck after this meeting, and he was aware of it for more than seven months without taking any action prior to this appeal. Were we sharing now . Okay. Great. So the screen share now shows the existing pergola, which is outside of our front door and the patio entering into our kitchen and dining room as kind of a frame of reference, and its from this Vantage Point directly behind where the photographer would be standing. Below that is mr. Littons yard. And as you can see, there very much is a structure currently in place there, which mr. Littons peal claappeal cl there isnt. Mr. Littons appeal focused clearly on the application, but we believe our appeal did not violate the planning policies. The architectural drawings and application clearly show the extent of the proposed deck. We were open and honest about our intentions throughout and never misrepresented any information. We followed the procedure, answered the questions of the Planning Department employees and finally had our application approved as nothing violated planning policies. [inaudible] and therefore are not we have a great relationship [inaudible] all of this is in an email and documented in our brief which includes a written confirmation and acceptance of our permit, which says there is nothing they object to. After the appeal was filed by mr. Litton, it is clear he contacted the encinas, and they said they had changed their mind about the deck, which of course they are entitled to do. Weve since engaged with them to talk about it further. We received an email from the encinas, claiming that they do not object to the deck, claiming that they want something more in line with the architecture of our building, which weve agreed to, and we thought it was a nice touch to the building. We would never begin any projects without their consent and again will continue to work with them, but we thought this was relevant to the proceeding and find it frankly offensive that these claims were made up, that we never received written confirmation from them when all of the written evidence in our brief proves that. We believe that this appeal is baseless and that the efforts to falsely procedure tray our Communications History with our up stairs neighbors are equally offensive and inaccurate. We believe this permit was issued by the s. F. Planning department correctly. We believe the board should deny this appeal. Well go into a little bit more detail around some of these yeah. So we just wanted to show you all what were trying to achieve here with this project, and want to highlight the current state here. We have a pergola. Ive been enjoying this almost every day for the last month. Its very nice. What were trying to achieve here in this next picture, this is just a very quick mockup. As you can see, there are no additional light infringement, no additional light or noise or anything. It looks like its part of the building, and so we just wanted to claim that, state that, sorry. As becky mentioned, we received an email from the encinas yesterday, supporting that. We have a great relationship with them and have maintained one since living at this property. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Vice president honda hey, guys. Thank you. So very concise package you have here, and i think youre going to have some very attractive swas wh attractive space when youre done. Can you just have a statement about how the preplanning meeting went and how it was attended . Yeah. I can address that. So our preplanning meeting was attended by mr. Litton and another neighbor, mr. Snow, and mr. Liskas, and one of his attendants, as well. Mr. Litton had concerns about privacy and light, both of which were included in the permit application. We even offered concessions in terms of putting up a screen, but mr. Litton wanted both privacy and light to come through, which is pretty tough to do, but we tried to work with him, and he did not do anything. Vice president honda okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Clerk thank you. So i dont see any other questions at this point, so we will now hear from the Planning Department. Mr. Sanchez . Hi. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. This is a fairly straightforward permit. The subject project at 14 havens is located in an rh3 zoning district. It is my understanding the houses were condominium units and were converted sometime ago. Theres no side yard requirement in this neighborhood. The rear yard here is generally 45 blocked out, however, it can be reduced based on the depth of adjacent neighbors but in no case can be reduced to less than 15 or 25 feet, whichever is less, so theyre showing on their plans of minimum 25 or 15 feet, whichever is less, so theyre showing on their plans of minimum of 15 feet. The depth grade at the floor level does not actually require section 311 notification. While we do have a very robust notification process, not every project is subject to notice. All decks less than 10 feet in height are not subject to notification unless they have some other triggers such as a fire wall because theyre located in close proximity to a side property line, but this project does not appear it has that. This project was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the department over the counter. The preapp was performed. Im not sure exactly why maybe there was a misunderstanding about the preapp process, but actually preapplication is not required for this project. It would have been required if it extended into the rear yard or the deck was more than 10 feet tall. I dont know if the project changed in between the time of the preapp or afterwards, but it appears that the permit holder is shaking his head know, so im assuming that there were no changes, and it may have been an error that it was done. In this case, it was an error that led to more notice and dialogue with the neighbors than was required under our requirements and policies. There was an issue on the permit form and what was stated on the permit form. Certainly, for a twounit building, i think the board of appeals would have the ability to make any needed clerical changes to the permit if that was an issue, and those are primarily theyre under the jurisdiction of the department of building inspection, and they wanted it to be accurate, so perhaps chief building inspector duffy can speak to these issues regarding those, but it would seem relatively minor clerical issues that could be addressed by the board this evening if the department of building inspection feels that that would be appropriate. Finally, issues raised about cc rs, and just to remind the board, as you well know, those are private agreements, and the city does not enforce those agreements, so we would not consider that in our purview. So i think that covers the points that i wanted to raise. Ill leave it at the project is in compliance with the residential Design Guidelines, and im available for any questions. Clerk okay. Thank you, mr. Sanchez. Let me see if theres any questions. There doesnt appear to be any at this point, so well move onto the department of building inspection. Mr. Duffy . Let me see if i can locate him. Im here. Clerk okay. Hi, commissioners. Joe duffy, d. B. I. The description on the permit is exterior addition of roof deck over existing first floor. It did go through planning building, issued on the 24 of february and then suspended on the 24 of february. I do tend to agree with the appellant on some of the issues that they brought up on their permit application. Calling this a roof deck, its probably not the proper description. I think it should have just been called a deck. And i wouldnt call the i think the pergola. Thats i wouldnt consider that a roof, but that can be probably exterior addition of a deck over the existing first floor. I wouldnt consider it a roof deck as we normally see. It is a straightforward enough project from what ive seen. I do tend to agree, as well, that box number 19 on the permit application, does this alteration [inaudible] i would say that should be f, so thats just items that need to be corrected. The other thing is how about that is a singlefamily residence dwelling unit, when in fact, they did a project there. Th a twounit building seems to be more familiar. Theres a few errors on the permit application that could be corrected by the architect. Other than that, it is a straightforward project, and im available for any questions. Clerk okay. Lets see if we have any questions. Yes, we do. President lazarus and then Vice President honda. President lazarus thank you. Mr. Duffy, given those corrections or given the information that was provided, would there have been any different decision on the permit . Not from a d. B. I. Point of view, no. President lazarus okay. Thank you. Clerk okay. Vice president honda . Vice president honda mines similar. So if the board decides to deny the permit, that it was properly issued, will the Department Clean that up or would the or should the board grant the appeal and condition the permit to reflect the work thats to be performed . Either way, but probably condition the permit to correct the errors on the permit application, with the number of dwelling units, 9a on the Building Permit, and then correct it to be just a deck. And then, the other horizontal, to be a deck. So if we were in the field, and we find these errors in the field, we would ask them to do a revision permit just to correct these items, and that would be another option for them. Vice president honda okay. Thank you, Senior Inspector. Clerk okay. Thank you. And let me see if we have anymore questions at this point. I do not see any, so were going to move onto Public Comment. Were on Public Comment for item number 8. This is appeal 20020, and we do have some Public Comment from miss cline. Thank you very much. Good evening, members of the appeal board. My names adrian cline. I am a neighbor of anders and becky, and i have lived and owned this residence for 25 years . I submitted a Public Comment letter to you, which i hope youve had a chance to read . It is provided in the package of materials i saw. I would its always awkward to be in disagreement with your neighbors, but nevertheless, i would like to state my opposition to the proposed project, which is not exclusive a cantilevered deck. It also involves a stairway on the northside of the building, and i would also like to i would address some comments to that. I do concur with the concerns of the appellant in this project will result in increased noise to the neighborhood. Our homes are located very close to each other, and i do have a concern over the fact that windows will be converted to doors and outside space, as one of the commissioners mentioned, while it will be attractive, will increase traffic for neighbors in all four Cardinal Directions in this location. So theres an Apartment Building immediately to the east that has, i believe im not sure of the number of units, but those residents will be affected. The appellants to the north will be affected. My bedrooms are on the northside are west of this building, and the noise, i believe, will come around the side of the building, and also the stairway could have impact light and noise impact as to the rear of my property. Excuse me. So i did take a quick look at your design residential Design Guidelines which do highlight the unique character of the San Francisco neighborhoods and the importance of preserving these characteristics, and your guidelines do extoll the importance of Design Guidelines and material. So to my review, the new deck does appear to have some aesthetic impact on the architecture of the building, which you have copies of images. And haven street, i think is one of those unique oh, dear and its called out in the stairway walk books. So i did not consent to this project. That was stated in the rebuttal to the appeal. I did not oppose it, but that was not equivalent to consent. That was a misstatement, and i believe stating that there wont be impact operator its time. And thats it. Clerk and just a reminder, Public Comment is supposed to be by telephone. I think i mistakenly shared the link with you, but in the future, if someone is here for Public Comment, please call in on the phone number on our website, but thank you, miss cline. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . If you called in for Public Comment, please press starnine, and that will let me know you want to speak. Were going to give it a little time. I do not see any other Public Comment oh, i see okay. We do have a caller. Okay. So the caller whose phone number is let me see. I just lost that person. Can you raise your hand again . Is it 51 can you just raise your hand again, Public Comment on this item . So the caller whose phone number ends in 0094, please go ahead and speak. Are you there . Its 510, area code, phone number ends 0094. Its mute. Hold on. Hello . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Hello . Would you like to speak in Public Comment . Clerk we had someone raise their hands calling from the 510 area code. Number ends in 0094. Were ready for you. Can you hear us . I unfortunately, were having some difficulties. Im not sure why we cant hear you. Okay. Let me see if theres any other Public Comment. Any other Public Comment on this matter . 14a haven street appeal . We can try one more i mean, i can try calling that number just to see. Theyve raised their hand twice, so it sounds like they want to get through. One moment. Clerk so okay. Thats up to the permit holder whether or not you can speak or not, but we cant hear you, so can you get through on your computer or for some reason, we couldnt hear you on the phone. Okay. Well, why dont you just stand by, just stay on the line in case they want im going to mute, though. Okay. So that is the architect for the permit holders who wanted to raise a few point. So if the appellants wanted him to speak during rebuttal, i can hold the phone up. Im going to scroll up. I dont see any other Public Comment. We are going to move onto rebuttal. Mr. Litton, you have three minutes. Okay. Just quickly on the comment about me reaching out to them, becky and anders. The last time we met, there was a meeting. I did express my objection, and, in fact, i did not hear anything further. You did not advise me that you were going to change the size of this deck or the deck. By the way, the email that i received from eddie and esvalda said they were opposed to. I received an email at 4 45 today, just before the start of this meeting, saying, in c conclusion, i would prefer not a deck, but i dont know how to object. So my question is, if its not just a matter of correcting te technicalitys on an application, is there any way of objecting to an oversized california deck on an older mediterranean house seems totally inappropriate. I agree with adrians comments, also, and it seems to me some aesthetic and size limitation, just not the idea of the whole deck being rejected, at least limit the size, as the size of the deck is relatively large, compared to the property. So like they implied, they can come to some kind of agreement with the other building owners, i think they should make it a little bit smaller, like a mediterran