>> the will can be 6 feet high. >> the will is not 6 feet high. >> a screen can be put up 6 feet high. >> if a screen was 6 feet high that exceeded the height about your waist -- currently the rail is not 6 feet high. >> if we were to impose the screen at 6 feet high with that satisfy your concerns? >> as long as people standing on the side cannot see in two or rooms. >> unless they're 7 feet tall. >> thank you. >> can we hear from the permit holder now? >> thank you. i am a physician in san

francisco and owner of the property. thank you for taking the time. this house that i have is owned with my wife, it has existed since the early 19 hundreds -- 1900's. the balcony that was shown previously has existed with this original permit construction and it is the same picture that was shown to you before. the balcony has always extended from the very western side of the house to the eastern side of the house. mr. kwok and his wife live on the eastern side. the beams that we were trying to address for the dry rot repair

have always extended all the way to the edge of the home. and that is shown in exhibit b. the other approval of want to make is we live in close quarters and i respectful of the fact that some neighbors, including mr. kwok and his wife will be sensitive to privacy issues. i have that history of aiding -- living eight years next to mr. kwok. i have had several complaints from him over the years at the ranch from light coming out of my office in a way that is unacceptable to him and so i have tried to probably to a fall avoid conflict by putting

at his request shades of to block the light from coming out of that window which also means that i get in from the daytime from that window and i have done that and he has asked, mentioned the fence between our yards has rotted and wanted me to repair it saar repaired the fans we share between our lots without asking him to contribute to that cost. he has asked me on multiple occasions to do various things and i have informed him that i wanted to do a dry run repair and also put in a guardrail, protective guard rail as my wife and i have a daughter in her second year of life. this is an unsafe balcony that has needed repair for many years. if a child were to climb out the

window would have a distance to fall. i have no intention of making any of the major modifications. the balcony is very much as can be seen in exhibit c is consistent with the rest of the house and its design. it always has been. i now he has been sensitive to light shining from the lamp that is shown in the corner which is a low watt bulb off the balcony backwards into his home and i do not mean for there to be an intrusion. i need to have a protective guard rail was no party is on the balcony with people hanging out at the edge of the balcony, looking backward into his home. that is not the intention at all. this is part of the value facing north and that is the intention of it. i had offered -- there are

inconsistencies between his claims and mine but suffice it to say that in the process, i had offered to build a screen as you mentioned, if you could go back to the exhibit c. it is hard to see from this picture. but to build from the required one our firewall that is here, this is required, this is a balcony at the property line. it was required when it was bill. to go all the way of not just 6 feet but to the roof overhang. we had a discussion and i thought we had an agreement on that in general 26 when i invited him over and i may not have invited you, mrs. kwok. i invited david over to the house. he said yacht club please do

that. this was during the time when i had constructed the dry run repair without a permit. that was -- that was my mistake. i should not have done that. constructing the wall would have been something i know would require a permit. i did not think it did but i was mistaken. he was complaining while agreeing with me to the wall. i went and proceeded to get all the necessary planning and permitting. i am still amenable to a wall. i do not mean for any of this to be an intrusion. i may not in all fairness be as willing as i have been in the past to close all my shades all the time in other areas of the house or to make every single one of your demands but i do not wish to live in discord.

if the board would like me to even though i've been on this project a lot and spent a fair amount of money to construct a wall or screen, something that goes here and can be reassuring, i would be happy to do that although it blocks light from this angle. i am not going to object to that. >> i do have a question. one of the points made by the appellants regarding the original existing platform or balcony, it does appear and i am looking at it with the photographs. i am not their present and i have not been provided with any measurements but it does appear that the death of the -- a depdepth.

>> the engineer's repair of the dry rot, yueh to push it at the end said there would be no more moisture penetration. he was -- we were told we had to cut that back and we have cut that back and the inspector came out and has confirmed on his visit on april 20, that the balcony has now been built according to the plans. when the notice of violation was given, the original construction was too far into the northerly direction but not toward mr. kwok's yard. >> in the northerly direction, from the appellant's brief, so is the picture we have been provided by the appellant, is

that not the current structure that you have there? >> that is right. >> that is not the current structure. president hwang: i can understand why you'd want it to go from end to end, where i understand -- what i understand the appellant to be requesting is to bring it in 4 feet from their side as a accommodation to their concerns. did you contemplate or consider that? >> i did with my wife. the whole construction and design of this has been, if you might show exhibit see again. very consistent with the way the house is built. the post and span of the balcony matches that and always

has -- that is one thing i have not win -- been willing to do is cut back on the edge but i am happy to provide some kind of privacy barrier. >> the barrier would have an impact on the light a thing. when i look at the couple of angles, because the guard rail if he did not have that real there that did not previously exist there would be no reason to have it if not used to step out onto. the lines would not be as visually prominent. in lining up the beams. i get it esthetically. it looks good. the guard rail had existed and been torn down. as part of the dry rot. this was stripped balcony still

extensive the edge and this is the replacement. >> can you show me that earlier? the existing? is that in here? >> yes. the girl that had existed. is that in our package? >> no. >> could you put that up there, please? the existing bar girl is the top? >> yes. >> ok. could to bring down the picture? how long had that been there? >> years. it needed repair. >> i of the question. i am still trying to understand the purpose of this structure. you cannot walk out on it. >> only to do cleaning or maintenance and only for

protection against people on the upper level who may fall out of the windows. >> or your windows. that would be the only reason to be out there. >> yes. >> you do not intend but any kind of doors or anything. >> that is not our intention. >> would there be any privacy concerns then if you do not intend to go out there and all? >> no. not from my perspective. >> thank you. >> is there a few issues here? quex in what regard? >> it appears that your neighbor is in a key lot and therefore the adjacent buildings of the other street project past his building. and is there a few then across a

narrow part of the rear that looks to the north? >> there is no incursion onto the view. the reason that i can back that up -- let me show you -- what you will see here is his home. he can still look this way. the tree goes further over into his yard than the balcony in question. >> there is to waste to deal with the privacy issue. what is either a screen wall, -- one is either a screen wall or to put a real -- rail intermediate on the deck and not run the planking all across. >> rail intermediate.

so people can not walk to the edge. >> you still maintain the tail -- rail in terms of its relationship to the window wall. >> i respect that position but it would also esthetically be similar to be cutting back 4 feet because there would be this new rail -- if where you are suggesting that there be a real -- rail that goes right here. i respectfully prefer not to do that. i would be happy if necessary to put a face greenwald. -- a screen wall. olive i would have to modify and played -- pay for the plans to do that -- although i would have to modify and paid for the plans to do that. >> thank you.

>> good evening. dan sider with the planning department. i am uncertain on where to start with this one. the history is monday. a little cloudy. maybe that is a result of things beginning here with work without a permit. what i would like to do is run through the sequence of events as we believe them to be and hope that leads us to a conclusion. we didn't know the work was done without a permit -- we did know the work was done without a permit. we also know that work included probably a doubling of the area of this platform or balcony or whatever it is at the rear of the property. dbi , this work and a notice of violation was issued. and a permit was sought and

obtained to trim back the deck to the previous as-built conditions. what it seems like happened is regardless of that corrected permit, work continued to some extent that it had begun. thus creating an additional violation and exceeded the corrected permit. specifically, the trimming back here did not take place and there was an image the permit holder had that might shed some light on that. we sure your observation. we are intrigued by the nature of this platform. i have never seen an investment on this scale for a structure that is accessible and largely unusable. that is a question.

regardless of that question, the planning department's goal is to make sure the applicable koets are followed and that the property is restored to its legal condition. to that end, what we might tentatively and respectfully subjects -- suggested to grant the appeal, uphold the permit, but adopt conditions which would do two things. firstly, to require the reduction or perhaps formalize the reduction of that rear deck or platform so it would extend no more than 2 feet, 6 inches from the rear building wall. that is the previously as billed condition. the second condition we might suggest would be to require that the repairs to the deck be entirely in kind. specifically, the deck feature and open railing rather than any firewall or screening and the reason for this is under the planning code, the only type of vertical structure that can be

affixed to this has to be open to the maximum us -- extent allowed under the building code and cannot be a fire wall here. leslee and with respect to the issue raised by the appellant in this matter, we believe it is reasonable to assume that once the deck is scaled back to the as built conditions, the privacy concerns would be addressed because the property would have reverted to its previous authorized dimensions. i am happy to answer any questions. >> where is the rear edge of the deck in relationship to planning code allowed with respect to the proper realign? >> the plan submitted and approved do not have what we would consider to be an adequate

site plan but it is sufficient to knew that the entire deck structure is within the required rear yard. the entire structure is nonconforming which leads to that can straight were the only railing that can be put on is open. >> when you say refer back to the prior condition, we saw a railing. >> we did. it was an open reeling. i do not have that picture. >> your recommendation would be an open drilling -- railing. if the permit holder -- if you choose to allow one it would be open to plan -- comply with the planning code. >> in the picture that we were shown, it appeared to me they were open. were they not open on both the proposed or the existing and a previously existing? i did not see any additional wahl.

>> that is correct. there was an image in the appellant brief that depicted some solid wall. whether it was a fire wall or not i am not sure. i believe the plans -- it was the imagery that suggested a solid structure on one end of that? structure. >> in my exhibit c, there was a fire wall. the fire was requested by the planning commission because this bill could has always gone to that party lines once we did the repair work, they asked a fire will be put there. i am not partial to a fire wall. the only reason the firewall is on the west side which is the

non-member site is for symmetry. if a fire wall were to be required on the east side neighboring mr. kwok's. the inner side of that wall -- was their interest to put the wall all the way around between the other rails? >> no. >> your intent is to build a deck that is 2 feet 6 inches wide? >> whatever is allowed by planning. it has been allowed if it is a 3 ft. balcony. that is what is in the appellate's last exhibit. you can see the description. extending 3 feet out from the rear wall. a balcony with firewall in

exhibit o of the appellant's brief. not 2 feet 6 inches but 3 feet. >> may i hear -- why are we hearing the discrepancies hear? >> my sense that the appellant -- the permit holder may be confusing the building department with the planning department. which is an understanding -- understandable confusion, i might add. if i can perhaps throw something out there. the photo on the overhead right now -- is not clear to me if this is the condition of the debt today. 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 hi