uzziah understand from the inspection department, the department and the appellant have -- as i am understand from the inspection department, the department and the upon have agreed to permit fees. do you want to hear from both start -- both sides? >> if the parties both want to be heard. if there is no need to speak, that is fine tthis is dbi. i'm happy to reduce the penalty to two times, which is the minimum we can go. i spoke to the applicant as well, and he seems happy. >> why did the department decide this? >> i think they are new owners and they're trying to comply with the violation notice. they're trying to combat -- to clean up the building. i've looked at things that were there previously with a different order that we might have missed.

but in this case, we're happy to reduce it. it is probably unfortunate that is statement -- that is even here. if someone had looked at it a little bit more, then maybe we would not be here. maybe we should do that more. but when i just read of the people working in a brief, it seemed to me that was reasonable. >> is the appellant here? would you care to speak to the board? if you do, you need to come to the microphone. >> we agreed with what he had decided. we are new owners, the penalty occurred prior to is taking ownership. we are in the process of correcting anything wrong with the building. we pulled permits and this was a surprise to us as we went to pull the permits. that is the reason we are here. but we are in agreement. >> ok, thank you.

any public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i move to reduce the penalty to two times the assessment based on the agreement between the two parties. >> thank you. mr. pachinko, when you are ready. >> we have a motion from president fong to reduce this penalty to 80 times the regular fee on the basis of the agreement between the two parties, dbi and the appellant. -- reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee on the basis of the agreement between the two parties, dbi and the appellant. the motion passes. >> i think it would be helpful to have commissioner hurtado

here for the next several cases. unless someone has the compelling reason to go forward at this moment, i think we would like to take a 20 minute break. are you ok with that? >> i apologize for being late, but i had a work commitment. i came as and as i could. >> we are resuming the meeting of the board of appeals june 13th, 2012. calling item number 7. david kwoff vs the department. a permit to of all -- to alter a building to the original

architecture. including railing and firewall. this is on for a hearing today and we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. gregg's ability evening, -- >> good evening, your honorable judges of the board of appeals. >> could you speaking to the microphone? rex oh, sorry. good evening. -- >> oh, sorry. good evening. my name is david. i'm here with my wife to exercise our rights that all homeowners are entitled to, and to protest the building of a balcony at 360 moraga street.

at please come help me place a condition of the balcony to be moved away from our property line, as stated in my brief. this is the last of the privacy we have enjoyed for over 30 years. since the home was built back in 1905, no home should have to suffer like this. the balcony takes up space and takes away from us our living headquarters. you may already know that this is not a new balcony. it was built before this was issued in april of 2012. mr. jason vermont blamed the fine on me, which he initiated. i felt like i was such a victim.

my main concern was the with a balcony was made. it was right -- was the way the balcony was made. it was right next our property line. >> face up, just like you were looking at it. >> this is too close for comfort. as you can see inside my home's living room, from exhibit a that i provided earlier. anyone can stand there and see right through my window without any effort. there are only 6 ft. apart -- their own 8 ft. apart. it does not get only -- any closer. you can get so in detail you can see my skin.

i do not wish to be seen so, especially at my main living headquarters. another problem is the height of the balcony. it stands almost 5 ft. above this floor, the family floor. it creates the look of a tiny tower. it is an ugly sight. the light shoots out of the property on 316 moraga street. it has light shining on it. it makes it look like the san francisco court power. and because of that, it blocks my view looking outward to the north of the golden gate bridge. the lights prevent that from happening. >> i also want to reemphasize the problem that we have

it is dark out there. i am full of frustration. i never had a say to this or anything. ed to reoffered. we never had any discussion on it. please let my wife continue. >> my name is ellen kwok, i am the wife of david. pleasrequest the court of appeao

order the abatement of the building permit. to say that balcony must be built 4 feet away from the public line so people stand on the balcony cannot see into our room. as one of the homeowners, i have never been invited to any of the meetings or conversations that was mentioned in the brief. i do not believe david and him ever came on in a verbal agreement on his attention -- intention of building a balcony. the definition of a balcony is a platform projecting from the wall of a building, a railing along its outer edge with access from a door or window. please look at exhibit b.

a picture of the response. this is what it would look like before was built into a balcony. it is not a balcony. what he claims is -- a balcony existed before he built it. no one can stand on that thing. i do not know how to college. my english is not that good. the pictures show how it was before it was expanded into a balcony today. you can look at it. exhibit e from the appellate brief. this is before it was expanded. i am sorry. thank you. it can see how it was expanded. it was in the size of a desk and

it is so close to the berms facing our backyard. a person standing on the backyard can effortlessly look into our room. his intention was to do a dry run repair. eventually it turned into a building. obviously when the inspector came, a balcony was there already. what our point here is to say is no balcony is [unintelligible] and there is a huge difference between people standing on the street looking into our rooms and people standing near

windows. >> your time is up. i have a question. you raised good points. one of the questions i have is, can you address, i know you have time for rebuttal. i would like to hear it in advance. the issue position raised by the permit holder that the only access, there is no flood access. people are -- i do not know what it is made for xm for additional space fleming. in terms of their privacy, it looks like no one will be walking out there. how would you respond? >> people can access to the balcony. quex like walking over the window? >> yes. >> open the window and go out

there. >> ok. thank you. >> one additional question. the permit holder had offered to provide -- president hwang vice president fung: the permit holder offered to put a screen wall. they indicated there was no response to that proposal. is that something desirable for you? no. a screen wall is a wall that people stand on the balcony, it is about that screen wall. if you stand on it, you can still see into our rooms. >> 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