enough, she can do it. but it is not for community use or whatever. no barbecues. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: as proposed, is the railing solid or open? >> each rail is supposed to be 4 feet. commissioner fung: 4 inch. >> metal tubes, copper tubes. vice president garcia: but it is not going to be solid. >> it will have 4 inch gaps. commissioner fung: he is talking about a picket. president goh: did i hear you say there are no plans? do you have drawings? >> there is drawings. i am sure the apollo whatever

the code is. president goh:-- they follow the whatever the code is. president goh: do you have drawings with you? >> no. president goh: thank you. >> is there any department or a bottle? -- rebuttal? president goh: i have questions for both. mr. sider, would we expect to see drawings in a situation like this with a second story deck? >> i think there are two issues here. the first is the plants that were reviewed and approved when the permit itself was approved. there certainly were plans included. our staff would not have issued an approval without plans. the second issue and the more critical one tonight is the presence of those plans at this

hearing. based on my understanding of your procedures and policies, it is pretty unusual for an appellant to not provide those or not look to provide those. i cannot offer any more insight. commissioner fung: i think it is more the permit holder would provide it to us. >> i stand corrected. president goh: thank you. >> no further questions? the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: we want to start? -- do you want to start? president goh: no, please. commissioner fung: part of the issue here is that people got used to their rear yard and

privacy for all the years they have lived there. the problem is blending in those concerns with what is basically a" compliant solution -- basically a code compliant solution. if people are on the deck, there is bound to be some level of noise or discussions, or kids playing and stuff. i think that is probably of concern to the appellants in seeing a new situation. we would want both neighbors to find some sort of solution they both can accept. it does not appear it is going to happen very quickly. i would make the suggestion -- if they cannot block out the

sound, they can block out the site. they both look to the north. yes, there is a possibility at certain times of the year, the sun as it sets will go a little beyond direct west and they will get a little bit of sun for a very short time in the day. if it was purely a like issue, we would probably be looking at -- light issue, would be looking at a more transparent screening and rail. i do not think that is the situation. i recommend we approved the deck, but with a six-foot high screen along that portion of the deck adjacent to the neighbors. six-foot high. president goh: i would be

inclined to support that as well, but i wonder. it seems strange to me we are talking about this and do not have plans in front of us. what if there are stairs to the rear yard on that side? commissioner fung: all i can go by is the permit application does not say anything about stairs. president goh: but then we have a deck coming out of a bedroom with no egress. commissioner fung: are you referring to a cult situation? you can egress to a bedroom. vice president garcia: i think it is -- president goh: i think it is a 25 foot requirement. it is likely not higher than 25 feet. other comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i am going to

move to uphold the department with the condition the permit holder add a minimum of a six- foot high screen that is opaque and you cannot see through. >> pardon me? translucent or opaque? commissioner fung: you cannot see through. >> there is no planning code issue with that height. commissioner fung: as long as it is set back 3 feet, it does not hit the -- it does not a hit the

fire rating. not with 7 ft. width. or depth. president goh: adjacent to these neighbors. commissioner fung: we will bring that up later. >> it is to grant this appeal -- it is to uphold the permit on condition that a six-foot high screen you cannot see through be added to the deck with adjacent to the appellant's property, just that. president goh: just that side. >> the deck with the adjacent to appellant-- width adjacent to appellant's property. vice president garcia: could we

have translation on the next agenda? it seems to come up every once in awhile. sorry. president goh: could you read that again? >> the motion is from commissioner fung up hold the permit on condition that a six- foot high screen you cannot see through be added to the deck width adjacent to the appellant's property. commissioner peterson: minimum 6 feet is what he said. minimum 6 feet. maximum of 6 feet? we are hearing from the department it cannot be more than 6 feet. >> my sense is both departments would appreciate some clarity on the maximum so it is not an open-ended condition. >> just 6 feet? commissioner fung: make it 6 feet.

if you same maximum, it could be two feet. >> you could say six to 8 feet. commissioner fung: does make it 6 feet. >> a six-foot high screen will be added to the deck width adjacent to mr. leung's propery. president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is 5-0. this permit is upheld with that condition. >> there is no further business before the board. president goh: we are adjourned.