>> president garcia, and new board members, who my client met with the neighbors to go after the -- to go over the plan. they discuss security bars. my client agreed to install the bars as a courtesy. they did not discuss the privacy screen, but they did address concerns about noise. the window in question is similar to the photographs at have been the appellants' documents. you can see the kitchen window, and you will also notice the war years window. -- the warriors window. it can afford of you down into the project area. the window in question is an

existing non-conformity property line window that dates back to the original construction. the space he refers to as security and light space is the side yard, and so kudos for using the word invasion. half of what we are proposing is indicated on the ground level, approximately 6 feet lower than proposed. >> can you go back to the one window? >> this is the current kitchen window. >> of the permit holder. >> i have a direct view of the bedroom. that is not the only bedroom window in question.

there are also two windows that face the real property. >> that is operable or not? >> i believe it is operable, but you have a window replacements. the current configuration, the access through the yard is the same it would be in the exact same location. the exact same location. it is 3 feet away from the property line, approximately 6 feet higher, so people are going to be walking through their eyes they do now. -- as they do now. regarding the window itself, i have not seen the shade " and,

we did the shade open. it is not of private window now. -- i have not seen the shade open. it is not a private window. the idea that we are changing it is simply not the case. the issue of privacy screen has been brought up, but as we said, and if i am standing directly right now, i can see mr. garcia, but if i turn this way i can see mrs. holstein. it is not going to restrict the view from the bathroom in question. it is not going to restrict the view from the kitchen window. we are willing to talk about good neighbor policies, but planning can address whether this would trigger notification. in has been our position from

the beginning that we are willing to address reasonable concerns if we feel that our changes would materially and address those concerns. the security issue we have no problem with. we feel that addresses the concern about security. a privacy screen we do not feel would address thought, and it would simply be right in the corridor of the brees way, so i remain available for any questions or clarifications. >> issue #3, would you address that? unless we are approving the drainage work currently there is a small drain near the area in question. and we are working to improve the drainage, because otherwise it would overflow into my clients garage. >> i do not understand the impact on the corridor of the increase when a -- of the breezeway.

the privacy screening on the deck, that is where it would be placed, and how would that impact -- why would anyone standing on the debck have any interest in looking in the bedroom of the neighbor? >> it is not a gathering place. the new proposed debck is access to the rear yard. it is introducing my client can introduce plant material. it is not a gathering place. >> but you are walking right by. >> you are very close to it. >> it is not a space that is untouchable. you could look right in if you happen to be curious. >> but i can also see her right here if there was a scream. >> you can address the screen on both anklegles.

i may be misunderstanding your drawing, but it appears there will be a rail here, so the screen can be here and hear? >> the appellant have asked for the screen here. ç>> not on this level either? >> no. >> i understand now. >> what is the distance between the end of the proposed new debt to the property line? >> this area here? that is a little over 3 feet, 3 feet 1 inch. the >> and the other -- any

other comments? >> how you access the rear yard? >> currently this is the only access to the rear yard. in the proposal, this will be access to the rear yard. there will be accessed off the bedroom to reopen. >> there is not living space? >> ok, and a departmental comments? >> good evening, commissioners.

i am available for questions. i think it was answered correctly. fear is one answer, if you are going to agree, it would have to be opened as from the inside. it would have to be open from the side. there would have to be a requirement. any questions? >> good evening. we are very glad to see you. this is a single-family house

district. it is not in a detached district. why that is significant is there are no required side yards in the zoning district. nonthe proposed debt does not occupy space in the rear yard. -- the proposed deck does not occupy a space in the rear yard. it does appear is one of several windows for the bedroom in question. a there is also a situation where privacy may also be afforded.

we respectfully ask that you uphold the property-issued a permit. >> following up on the last comment, we have heard from the appellant it is unusual to put a dent in the space that is otherwise sacred the regular -- sacred. park>> my proposal stems from te idea that this is not at all unusual. >> do you know with respect to the arguments with these particular properties it would be an aberration to have a debt

in that place? >> we can put an overhead of. would that be helpful? >> that would be pure your -- that would be. >> my apologies. it does appear in is not as enlightening as i was hoping it would be which respect to whether or not sex would be constructed nearby --

>> that's ok. >> just one question on the window, it is my understanding that they are not supposed to be operable. was it built at a time where you could? is that why is nonconforming? >> i defer to the inspector on that. >> we do see a lot of those on san francisco buildings, we certainly see a lot of that on nonconforming property line windows. if you put one in today, it would have to be fixed with a steel frame. >> what if somebody wanted to come in and fix it? would you allow that?

>> i am talking about egress. it would have to be a non- comparable window with the steel frame. you have to go through that notification process with regard to having to give up your right to that window. that is not the case here, we just see a lot of that type of thing. obviously, it has been stated, but it is really hard to tell. president garcia: if the permit older would agree to make that window more secure, they can't do that because it has to offer a means of egress. yet the appellant could affix

the window in such a way that it would not serve as a means of egress? >> if you don't touch it and leave it alone, you would have to be able to get out through the window. if you choose to get a permit to replace the window, we will let you replace it in kind, it is the seine from it is building code that lets you replace something in kind. if you were putting in a new window, it would have to be fixed. i know it doesn't make sense, but san francisco codes -- >> we appreciate your saying it doesn't make any sense. >> i was getting at is if you decide to put a guard rail or some sort of railing, you can't simply place it over the window. you would have to have it locked from the inside. there are other windows in that bedroom, and if access to those

windows was blocked, you always have that option. i see it is on an aluminum slighter window, so it was probably put in at some point along time ago. >> to the extent that you are interested in any changes, it is not part of this permanent. it is on a different property. president garcia: we are only asking because one of the request had to do with security, and they say it is not feasible because it is not allowed for the permit holder to grant the concession to the appellant. because it has to serve a means of egress. >> i thought it could be done as long as the security bars open from the inside out. >> they could offer to pay for

that to happen. >> we will take public comment. please step forward. >> my name is ruth, i am the property owner. >> you are given time to speak through your agent, so if you would like to speak, you can speak during rebuttal. as a permit holder, you are represented. you can share your time or you can take those three minutes as you wish. is there any other public comment? we will start with rebuttal, and we will start with the appellant. >> there appears to be a little bit of confusion about the configuration and relationship of the windows and the space.

is this better? this is the window in question. this represents the proposed site back as opposed to the rear deck. there have been no rear decks, but there are no debts of the nature we are complaining about a year. mr. hill said that there is a direct view from the kitchen. that is not really the case. it is an oblique view, it is someone leaning over the kitchen sink. we are not really concerned about that. our concern is that the kitchen

sink is going to go away. and then there is the access to the area right in front of the window and question. it is also true that there are vantage point elsewhere. the warrior window upstairs, another part of the deck further in the back, the kitchen access. we don't regard that as a reasonable request. we calculated our suggestion to narrow the impact it would have on the applicant's design structure and use. we mayor of the screen and it could be of any nature as long as it is high enough to block the view of people assembling there. i can tell you by my experience, that is exactly where they'll ago.

if there is a route from ab, people seem to jam of the area in between. the department stated that this is an over-the-counter application, we are fully aware of that. there was no judgment exercised by the person handling this case because there was no one representing them to bring to their attention this issue. we believe the proposal we have made, the conditions, i believe that is agreeable to many of them. they should be imposed has conditioned to grant any deck permit.

president garcia: i'm sorry. you heard the discussion from dbi and planning having to do with not being able to put anything on the window that would make it more secure. you understand that? >> i understand that there is an issue. for the purpose of this hearing, i have no choice to do that. we are not asking for any extraordinary relief from any code provision here tonight. anything that is granted as a result of our appeal would certainly be subject to compliance with all applicable codes. if we have to make a showing of some major to demonstrate that it is appropriate and legal, we are fully prepared to do that.

>> miss carlton. >> i am the property owner. i will keep this brief, but i do have the same window. there really isn't privacy in that window. you can see into my neighbor's kitchen. really from the beginning, i sincerely tried to be of good neighbor and i reached out, before it started construction, to listen to their concerns which at that point were safety. i thought it was a really nice meeting. i encouraged them to call me if i had any concerns. i was definitely taken aback

when they hired a lawyer to appeal and i was willing to sit down with them to work out an agreement. i met with them and their lawyer, we had a fine meeting, has talked about what their concerns were. they presented a document the called out a specific size and design and gave me less than 24 hours in which i was supposed to sign this document or they were going to use this format. i really reached out and responded and asked if they could a lemonade the design elements calling out i would coh

to reach an agreeable solution with them. i really feel like i have been bullied into something, i have been accessible and i feel like i have tried to be a good neighbor with this situation. i do have the same window, and there is no privacy as it exists. commissioner fung: what are you willing to do? >> at this point, i am less inclined, i guess, the security bars -- that is fine. i am not willing to let them dictate the design of anything on the bacdeck. it is a project i have put a lot

of time and energy -- the only access to the yard is through the basement. i work hard and would like to come home and have weekends to be able -- this would allow me to get a cup of coffee and to sit in my backyard and read the newspaper. just trying to improve the house. commissioner fung: my last question would be the floor level at the kitchen is lower than the floor level at the bedroom? >> that is correct. >> i understand and appreciate you giving us this sort of background on the efforts to try to not be here today. i'm wondering if, and i u

nderstand you have put a lot into the design of your deck. you you believe their libyan opportunity for you to have another set down -- sit down and work that peace out? >> yeah. i would be still willing to talk about it, i just don't feel like it should be imposed. >> i understand. president garcia: not that we necessarily would impose it, but what is the current proposed size of the screen that they are asking for? you have to come to the microphone. >> we have simply presented

their representation with the idea that they could decide what size dimensions. we were not trying to dictate any particular dimensions. it was just within a reasonable period. at most, nine feet wide, probably closer to six. the two posts are probably no more than 36 inches apart and high enough that a warrior would not be able to look into the window. >> the current window is 36 and the proposal was 4 feet beyond that. so 7 ft. >> i know my house, i looked at three apartments. my neighbors watch me eat dinner

with my entire family. it is part of living in the city. i agree that this happens in urban environments, we see any others windows. there are ways to fix it. there is frosted glass, but i think this is part of living in the city. having space kind of adjacent to your neighbors and seeing them garden. i don't necessarily -- i don't think the bars -- it seems there is a three-foot gap. >> is there anything further from the department? president garcia: the matter is submitted.

>> icn opportunity for the parties to have a sit-down. every time i heard the appellant speaker, i heard you're referring to mr. hills out of some level of deference that he is the architect and designer. i think from what you just represented, i got the sense that you haven't carved out the specificity to present a clear- cut proposal today anyway. it sounded more generic. >> may i respondd to that? >> sure. >> i did not impose a 24 hour deadline, the code did. if i could have given her 24 days, i would have been happy to do that. >> you could've had a continuance agreement --

>> the appeal had to be filed within the 15 days, but there can be ongoing discussions beyond that. >> i appreciate your point. >> there would be every reason for the parties to continue even after the appeal was filed to sit down. that was over three weeks ago. we have not heard a word from mrs. carlton in the interim. perhaps she got back up, quite understandably, that we were forcing the issue. it was the code that required us to appeal. we are quite willing to continue to talk. >> it sounds like both parties are willing to have further discussion. did i hear that correctly? >> i feel like it got beyond discussion and into