it was the deck in the past or the condition in the as bill. i do not believe it was the latter. i'm sort of confused now. i leave it at that. >> this is how it looks right now. >> is that consistent with the as bill? >> that is why the inspector when the inspector came out, he found it was -- >> is iis consistent with the permits. >> what else is inconsistent? >> we want to hear from the department. >> i do not -- the information in the packet suggests otherwise.

i am sorry. >> this image to me would appear to be the as built. it was removed as part of the dry rot work? >> this is not the as bill. this is the picture of the post- removal of the railing. >> i will fly back from this to

the image we see today. the depth of this structure appears different than the depth of this structure. it would appear to us from these images that they trimming back has not occurred. >> i would like to get a rebuttal. >> for the dry rot repair? >> what is your question? >> he has a question. >> is it the same depth? >> there was an additional 6

inches that was granted in order to protect from oyster -- moisture. it is 6 inches from the bottom of the portion of the beam. i do not believe it is extended beyond the top portion of the original choice -- joists. that is why the engineering and planning and permit came up with the distance. >> thank you. >> i will give you some history. the department received a complaint that they were building a deck without a permit. and we out and cited for building without a permit.

building a deck at the rear of the building, it is not a deck and even to call it a balcony could be a stretch. something decorative may have been close. we issued a notice of violation, upper right got obtained -- a permit got obtained. i saw the plans and there were not of great quality. i worked very hard to understand what was existing and what was proposed. i cannot figure that out from these photographs that were submitted as part of the brave. i cannot tell if there was an existing railing from the photographs. people have stated there was but i cannot tell if these are existing or proposed conditions. i think that is where we're at here. with regard to the far wall, if you are rebuilding something in kind and it did not require a

firewall, the building department will usually allow you not to have to put a fire wall in there because it existed previously without it. your rebuilding and putting it back. you're not making any bigger. if you go out and make it bigger, all bets are off. it has to be brought up to the code. if the structure was built to code, it would require a firewall or some kind of noncombustible construction at that point were we have a fire wall now. i am available for any questions. >> would help make this less confusing? -- what would help make this less confusing? >> more better evidence of existing conditions. the 6 inches we're talking about. i would need to see detail. the clear detail. more accurate information on

existing and proposed. the link and the width of the balcony, exterior elevations showing existing and proposed because i cannot tell if there is anything outside of that. regarding safety concerns about falling out a window, that good for -- could go for any window. i am not sure why a guard rail would help. you should not be out on this balcony. i would call it of -- i will call it a balcony. people should not be out on the balcony. it is not accessible. i see it as cantilevered as well which is structurally ok. it has to go twice as much back into the building as it goes outside. it has to go back in six. i do not think anyone should be out on the structure. the information is very -- i cannot -- it is hard to figure

what is going on. if i had photographs from before it would be great. of the before condition. i know the gentleman stated they were. it is hard to tell from the photos, to be honest with you. this photograph in exhibit c. i can tell if it is an existing or proposed. as of today. maybe a site visit could help. >> is there anything from planning that could assist you in clearing or determining the confusion? >> additional information documenting original existing conditions would be helpful. that said, from a planning perspective, we would preliminarily be satisfied that

the platform you can see was indicated at a depth of 2 feet 6 inches, that was the existing epaired. we look at a very different set of issues. >> is there any member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, we will take rebuttal. three minutes. >> he said we are a complainer. we are not.

we because he said he want a tree there, the people canno0t see through his window. we also -- obviously, people stand on that balcony can see into our rooms. we drive around our neighborhood. people build the balcony usually 3 feet away from the wall and this is another one. they keep space with each other, each building. privacy can be maintained. and we want to emphasize this is what it looks like an obviously,

-- and obviously, this whole project was billed -- built to have people to go out and entertain people. thanks too tho the birth of his daughter, we do not have to worry about loud music during the week day for our school kids. >> this -- this thing he calls a felony is wet appears on the exhibit. it is not a balcony. it is a piece of board for decoration purpose with your -- which you see in many homes in

san francisco. it is just for decoration purposes. it is not meant to be like a barbecue -- like a balcony where you can have a balcony or whatever you want to do. hang out there all night, partying. it is for planks. even if you put a plant on it, it could fall over and hit someone. it is at most a couple of feet wide. how can it be a balcony? it cannot be a balcony. it has been there for so many years. i did not know it even exists. that-i could not see it on the edge of our home. you could hardly see it because it is so small. thank you. >> did you not see the guard

rails on there before? >> no. >> when -- there were no guard rails.? >> do you mean the board -- >> there is no rail. >> we heard testimony that barred real's existed. >> it is a piece of board on top. two piece of board like a two by six or whatever you call that. >> why don't you put up exhibit a? >> this is what was completed before. >> there is a board -- a horizontal board on top.

it does exist before? >> not exactly like that. >> no. >> the picture there is partly built already. before the permit was granted. >> thank you. i do not have any further questions. >> you have three minutes. >> i really just want to be done with the whole thing. is taking a long time. i would like to repair it and be done with it. however that needs to be done from everybody is perspective, i would like to spend the least amount of money i can and just repair it. however it is appropriate or

suitable. if nothing else, i have to add, whenever you're bored's feeling is as to which should be done. thank you. >> the simplest thing to do is leaving the beams projecting outward. if you put the rail as we suggested earlier as a potential alternative, if they are recessed in 3 feet or 3 feet 6, you're not required to put a fire wall. >> i would prefer not to have a rail than to cut back -- there

are beams that, all the beams that support the structure have come out from the original structure all the way to the edge and i would prefer to remove all railings and such than to cut back inward. that would be consistent with existing. however the agreement is on existing, but i do not want to cut the balcony back. even if you look at this structure here, which i do not think anybody is debating as the structure that had been stripped of the dry rot.

i do not want to cut back from the ends but if you're board feels i should strip everything down, get rid of railings, firewalls, but i do not want to cut it back architecturally inward from what has never been there. >> understood. president hwang: anything more from the departments? mr. duffy? >> just something quick. if the balcony did extend to the property lines and if the new rail was set back in where you could keep the board's running past the guard rail, that might be an option but i do not know if that is what you were getting at when you said that. it wanted the balcony cut back as well. if we could -- we could set in

three foot six and that would not be seen by the neighbors said he could keep the balcony to the property line with the grill said in a 3 ft. 6. >> there are a number of options. if he wants the rail to go around the entire -- let's call a balcony at this point. that is ok. if he then has a vertical and horizontal line he wants respect to the building elevation, that is fine. if he wants to avoid putting in the firewalls, that he can in said in -- and sent -- inset in the rail. it seems like that would take care of both issues between the neighbors and them.

and reduce how much it would cost. i'm not sure takes care of the argument the neighbors may have. i do not think we can deal with that. >> ok. just thought i would mention. >> anything further? >> thank you. i want to reiterate that the planning department's primary concern would be restoring a property to the compliance of the planning code and regardless of the location of the railing, as long as they're open, that means reducing the death of the deck to more -- no more than 2 feet 6 inches from the rear building wall. just want to reiterate that. >> are you saying that to the edge of the beams? >> no. 2 feet 6 inches from the rear

building wall. presumably from the -- the extent of the existing previously billed beams would be no more than 2 feet 6 inches. that is what was reflected on the plans that were approved. >> it could be off a little bit. if the issue is the beams are existing as built conditions, the edge of the beams would be the limit that you are talking about. >> the edge of the existing beams, should the department able to able to detect from the recently added. >> in response to that. i just don't want to cut it in. whatever the permit our planning

department needs to do to come out to see what is existing and keep it there is fine with me. >> my suggestion was not to cut -- >> you were sauyi -- saying adding a railing inside. >> the matter is submitted. >> there's no real good solution but i would propose the following. i would take into consideration the planning department's two conditions. i would uphold the permit for

the permit. with those two conditions and with a third i would add on the property line a six-foot high firewall or lattice as a visual deterrent. >> that sounds like where i would be going. >> what are the planning conditions? >> what is the -- one is the dimension of the balcony is equivalent to the as built conditions which would be the best of the existing beams. >> they are no longer existing. >> they still are. >> i think they were ripped off based on the picture i saw but i could be wrong.

are those the beams that were underneath? i thought those were the dry rot issues. >> no. the beams underneath the balcony were reinforcement beams that were added on either side and then engineering was done to make it structurally sound for planning commission. the original beams were in the inside. que>> the suggestions were to reduce the death -- depth and require that the repairs be in kind and that included an open railing and no firewall. >> with a screening on one side.

>> the main portion would be open to the maximum extent possible as per planning code but on the property line, i would condition it with a six- foot either lattice or firewall. >> one last point. mr. duffy asked me to respectfully suggest that on the plan, the deck beat labeled as not for occupancy -- be labeled as not for occupancy. >> thank you. >> that is my motion. >> i want to be clear i understand this. to grant the appeal and issue the permit on several conditions. the dimensions of the structure be consistent with the previously as built dimensions. and is it a separate condition that the depth be no more than 2

feet, 6 inches from the rear of the building wall? >> that is part of the first condition. >> ok. then i am not clear as to what the second -- >> the second planning condition is that the railing be to the maximum extent possible open as per the planning code. >> you're adding a condition of a six-foot lettuce or firewall -- lattice or firewall.

>> ok, when you are ready. >> we have a motion from the vice-president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with several conditions. the first condition was that the depth of the structure represents the as built conditions. and the railing be open to the extent -- maximum extent possible. that a six-foot privacy wall -- or did you say firewall?

>> a six-foot privacy wall or -- lattice or firewall. >> that would be erected at the property line adjoining the appellant. >> would that be necessary if i removed the railing entirely? isn't that what's the objection of the appellant is? >> ok. why don't you come to the podium and make a proposal. that is what you are saying. we have heard what you do not prefer to happen. we have come up with a decision and your interjecting yourself in the middle of the process. >> i appreciate you say that. if there is a railing on the balcony, you would like there to be a wall that goes up 6 feet or

a lattice on top of the existing firewall. if i choose to just remove the railing which is part of the objection of the kwoks, could i also have the option of not having any railing or wall? >> yes. >> i just wanted to add that compounded into your description. >> the condition would be to either install a six-foot privacy wall or lattice or firewall or have no railing. >> yes. >> i wanted to make sure we have had a lot from the permit holder. i have not heard responses from the appellant and i want to make sure that the appellants are following what is going on here. if you could come to the podium, i want to make sure that you understand what we were talking about.

>> thank you. my understanding is the board proposed to build a six-foot privacy wall so he can keep his balcony. is that right? >> that is one of the conditions. dr. berman stated he would like to choose the option of removing rails all together so no privacy what would be there. >> no railing and no wall. >> just a platform. the balcony is a horizontal several pieces of wood. >> the depth would be reduced to comply with the planning code. >> i want to make sure you

understand what we're doing here. one of the things we're trying to do is address the needs of -- that you have raised as well as insurance that -- as ensure that dr. berman can have his balcony. >> no one can stand on that platform? >> the plan would be marked no occupancy so people are not supposed to be on it. and one of the things that dr. berman stated was that he would like the option and he is entitled to this to have no railings and if there is no railings, there will be no privacy wall. a wide to be clear that is a condition that makes sense for you and your privacy concerns. do you understand? >> yes. >> is that acceptable? does that address the privacy concerns? >> yes