indicating the size of the design. >> are you willing now to engage in further discussion? yes? i would suggest and to move unless i hear differently from my fellow commissioners to give the parties this opportunity by continuing this matter. president garciacommissioner f d like to make a couple comments. you know, the planning department and those that indicated the size of the project is not substantial. it just imposes a slightly different orientation and

geometry to the spaces in between the buildings. i am not so much concerned about the security aspects, but i think that the permit holders should put a screen wall. i would make that screen wall at right angles withich is what commissioner hwang was leading to. i would make it match the length of the window. saying that if we're going to continue, that is the position i would be taking. hopefully it will act as some type of framework for the discussion. president garcia: if i match the size of the window, you mean if

it is 4 feet wide or 3 feet wide, you would want to scream to be 3 feet wide? commissioner fung: the length of the window is 6 feet or something like that. each window is 3 feet. ok. going to the length of the window with the screen and make it six feet high. president garcia: i don't mean to keep the discussion going, but it is pretty meaningful, the point made by mr. hills, the architect. if it's three feet wide, the vantage point is almost as great looking into the window as if you were directly in front of the window and there were no screams.

i am not saying that to be disagreeable. i thought that before we had discussions, i think the security issues is out. i don't think it will be allowed by dbi. you can fix the window and that would increase security. it seems as though the third point had to do with grain and water intrusion into the broader has been stipulated that it not only will be done -- it is something reasonable that can be done for this project.

i will go on with the suggestion that it be a three-foot screen. i will go along with commissioner hwang's suggestion that we delay this and let further discussion take place and i look forward to hearing from commissioner hillis. >> not that i haven't enjoyed my time here at my first meeting, but i think it would be great to come to a solution. that is where i would go to, a screen of that size. we can stipulate that it is a 3 foot screen, 6 feet high. i think that is where we will get eventually anyway. president garcia: i am sure the

architect knows what we mean, do you need clarification on what we might be imposing? >> i am not sure where the 3 foot screen came. that is not what we are proposing. we are proposing that it be a least two posts wide, at least six or seven feet minimum. it wouldn't be a three-foot -- >> we understand. that's not what i was proposing. i'm proposing that the screen occur at a right angle here to the edge of where your window stops. that is what i am proposing.

i am proposing that you put a screen here to the edge of the window. it doesn't matter, it is the length of it that matters that go to the edge of the window. president garcia: somehow you have to get it on the overhead, commissioner fung. >> the screen that is perpendicular to the window, you get that you now from their kitchen window. that view is there. i propose just a three-foot screen in front of the window.

>> i don't think that cuts it. i was asking the question earlier, they were clarify the proposed screen, i said it did not make sense. commissioner fung makes more sense. >> that's fine, they did not ask for that. >> i understand, we are just trying to make a situation that seems to work from our perspective. president garcia: and do you understand what form it will take? do you want it straightened out before you make your comment as to exactly what form it is going to take? >> i would like to see what you have in mind before we comment. president garcia: mr. hills understand it and he can explain in on the overhead so that we all understand. >> it's perpendicular but an l-

shape. take my proposed screen, shorten the to the width of the window and impose another 90 degrees green to the kitchen side of the lukien bedroom window. that would be perfectly acceptable if the extension to the rear was at least another 36 inches. it is almost meaningless to miss carlton, but very important to us, but the concept is acceptable. president garcia: what is taking place right now as a compromise. it is beyond the point where amistad gets to -- we want you to understand what is being proposed, but we are not asking for your approval for what we are proposing. we are not as interested in what

you want. -- disinterested in what you want. >commissioner fung: we are not normally so draconian in our approach. the way it was proposed before doesn't make any sense to me. for privacy purposes. president garcia: that is why is ai said i thought it would be directly reasonable to have a screen that is perhaps a little wider than your client's screen. perhaps make it five feet where you have a foot on either side and 6 feet high just so that psychologically, there is not someone standing directly -- or with vantage point, it will continue to exist. >> just to follow up on that,

based on what the appellants were saying earlier, i don't think there was an understanding that people in the kitchen could actually see into the bedroom and that maybe the reason for the proposal. i did not address that viewpoint that i think the 90-degree screen with addressed -- would address. commissioner fung: if you stand in the corner, you are closer than anywhere else. >> i would do the screen. i did the red mark on there, those are my red marks. i would do the 90 degrees and the 3 ft. covering the window and maybe one additional foot. i don't know what the bars are, i'm shooting in the dark here.

that is why i would much prefer if the parties worked out. >> we are agreeable to continue to talk. >> i see them shaking hands, they would rather have it imposed on them. >> is the construction site that has been stopped. we begin building again. -- need to get building agian. ain. our permit was issued, we started construction. they have preliminary excavations -- perhaps it is a misunderstanding on the permit holders park your imposing --

president garcia: my feeling is, it was important. at this point, if the other commissioners don't want to agree, i personally am strongly inclined to uphold the sperm that because it is a reasonable and small design, reasonable vantage point into the window. we know we can't oppose -- as we know we can't impose security. it is not really an issue. those are my feelings, and i am

therefore against continuing this. if we can't agree on something small that they will agree to, i personally am going to vote to uphold the permit as is. >> before motions are made, i hear and i heard mr. hills, what you said about wanting to proceed with the construction and i recognize that. but maybe one week, there is a meeting set for one weekend i am not going to be here. maybe we can continue in for one week and give you the opportunity to knock it out. >> i think i may hvave been misunderstood. it will help with security, but it has behalf openable -- it has to be openable from the

inside. president garcia: i understand. it would give them added protection. >> he would not be able to get in there. i wanted to correct that. >> they can't put railing to the outside of the window. >> with a continuance of one week to be acceptable -- >> we are willing to take a 10- minute break to see if you can

solve this problem. and you're not coming out here a week from now. >> those are my two options? >> if you don't take the 10 minutes, i dunno what you have to lose by that. >> you heard commissioner garcia. if the others don't agree on condition or approach, we can't condition the permit. >> sure. we'll take ten minutes. >> ok.