two doors going out to the roof. if it is oriented so the deck is to the west, one door should suffice. i do not think you need them much access for roof maintenance. nobody else has it. >> thank you. other public comment? seeing none, we will start with a bottle. -- -- rebuttal. appelant, you have three minutes. >> ok if we split it? president garcia: anything you want to do. >> i am the south-facing neighbor. i understand the confusion, listening to the description. people are coming out -- the house next to theirs is the same. we actually have bedrooms upstairs.

there is a closet, a bathroom, a whole suite. the privacy is important to us. we put in shutters of the week blocked off people looking below, in the light well from their kitchen, but i cannot stop people from above looking in, unless things are moved back. i think that was already mentioned. were the people on the deck just a couple of feet back further, that would allow privacy in my area, which is all i am asking. i thought it was a very modest thing. i do not think losing eight or 12 feet of a 500 foot deck will have much impact on the neighbor, but i think you have a profound impact on my privacy and my light. the other aspect is the barbecue grill. i know it has gotten short shrift. but if someone is going to put a grill right on a light well and

start burning things there -- i know what they plan that in the description. of course it is going to impact my house, my bedroom, my clothes, and my bathroom. all i am asking is a tiny solution, which is move it back in just a couple of feet, which would be a simple resolution and would not cause any substantial impact on the neighbors, but would have a substantial benefit to me. >> i would like to point out one thing, using the photos that the permit holder has supplied. if you look at this shot of my deck, which is really the backyard, you can see a sliver of sunlight that comes through. that is what i am trying to protect.

if you see the sloped roof that is mentioned, the reason there is not a light well is i sloped the entire roof of the building for the previous homeowner, so they would have a lot of light. they actually have views out of their bathroom. that is a lot more expensive kind of a change then we are asking tonight. thank you. commissioner fung: i have a question for mr. strasburg. the windows in your light well lead to what rooms? >> one is a bathroom. another is our large closet, our changing room. commissioner fung: you have windows on all three walls? >> it is a light well. up like that?

okay. president garcia: this is the bedroom? >> that is my sequence. >> we have three minutes of rebuttal now for the permit holder. if you have anything more. commissioner fung: this is from the permit? >> we do not have any notes that say we are going to burn food on the roof. what we do have is a picture of a gas grill with a lid on it. and notes about how far that has to be from the property line to ventilate properly. most of these gas grills have

these hoods on them. i do not understand how that is when to affect these rooms. privacy wise, we are standing even further away from the railing the new would be. and it sounds like the bedroom is the point of concern for privacy. unless you are going to stand on top of the grill, how are you going to see into this room? we are not putting a deck on the back of that roof. the plans that she references for the resale of the home -- they did not show a deck on the back of the roof. they showed how you could add a roof deck exactly where i am adding this roof deck. the only intent of the stairs is to make it easier for someone to get out of the house. that is it. president garcia: that is the reason for the second door?

>> the door on front lead to out to the deck. the other is mechanical access, surface access. we could do a gate. but the way we had drawn the plans, we made it expand over toward the wall of a light well. we could have jogged the deck around the light well. our railing continues straight across. it does not jogged in on the side. there is not room for a gate there. if we pulled it back, it would be unsafe to get through. at some point, you are pulling the grill further and further into the usable part of the deck. the door is the easiest of this point of access. we have windows in the penthouse already facing the other property. if there are privacy issues, it

is just as viable as a point of voyeurism as any of them. they are existing on the part of the roof we are not using. commissioner fung: 2 below questions. is there gas piping going to the bedroom? -- two questions. >> yes. we planned for a gas line to come up behind it. you can barely see it. commissioner fung: is there anything magical about the location? could it not be against the wall? >> kevin robinson, owner of 2756. we would be also willing to move the location of the rail -- of the grill. it may just be a charcoal weber that is on wheels. we could move it from the south

wall of the deck to the north side. commissioner fung: as a technical question, the rail that you placed with your northern neighbor is correct in that if you moved it over a foot or so, we would have an automated rail. >> there is a security grilse of the lower neighbor cannot get to the roof. -- grill so the lower neighbor

cannot get to the roof. it is only 2 we will feet between the -- two feet between the rail and the door, and you need three feet. commissioner fung: you need only one leaf of the door. shift it. >> but if we ship it, we are in the 2 foot 10 region. i am getting the fire regulation -- the people who would be using the gate would be able to go through the gate downstairs. this is the widest point of access. i no longer meets my fire egress. keep in mind the top 18 inches

-- it is only the lower 30 inches. we are already three feedback. -- three feet back from the property line. president garcia: what time of day was that picture taken? >> probably around 2:00. president garcia: what month? >> this was pretty recent. it was after we had started meeting with them. that is december light, or january light. president garcia: this is east? commissioner fung: that is west. president garcia: thanks.

>> thank you. is there anything further from the department? commissioners, unless you have other questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: the easy one is to relocate the barbecue. president garcia: all right. let's go home, then. commissioner fung: since we have new commissioners, they have never heard me say this before. i am probably the only commissioner here who is not heavily enamored with refects-- roof decks, given that in an

urban setting you need the open space, but you also have the potential for a lot of irritation and potential impact, both noise and perhaps now. i do not see that as a big issue. -- perhaps smell. i do not see that as a big issue. people on the roof potentially creates problems. and of the zoning administrator and i have had this discussion many times. i always wondered why there was not some type of limitation on the size of the roof? -- of roof decks. there is no correlation between roof deck size and open space requirements. since this building is a condo and that the agreement is that the bottom unit gets the rear

yard and the top unit gets the roof deck -- most of us in multiple units in san francisco use the rear yard for our open space. but it has become very popular to have roof decks. i am sure it is not only just for you, but they had been above, which critics assert an atmosphere. -- which creates a certain atmosphere. i am not above requesting it be set back. president garcia: how much would you propose? commissioner fung: i would say probably a foot, foot and a half. commissioner hillis: i guess my

only issue on that would be that the light well adjacent to the double doors -- i get the point that it starts to impede into this 2 foot 10 area. would you be able to set that back? would you be able to set that back? i do not know if we can do that. they need the space for egress. commissioner fung: we can ask the building department. i am not sure i agree with her interpretation, to see that as the required egress. >> i did hear that comment. the the 6 inches, when we are talking clear with -- 36 inches

seems narrow. 36 inches, in this case, is usually ok. that is from what i remember. i would go between the post and the corner wall. it looks like it has got plenty of room, if that is what we are talking about. commissioner fung: if the door shifts, it probably improves that. >> we do not need the double leaf. i do see one other issue with regards to it. the door swings over the step. that would not be allowed. there some issues there that i could talk to the architect about later. commissioner fung: the deck will have a landing? >> it will need one. that is right. president garcia: please do not do that. if you need to address the board or mr. duffy --

>> i can speak to the architect myself. i just thought i would mention it. it is a tripping hazard, actually. thank you. president garcia: i will probably go along with moving the rails somewhat. i think it is reasonable to move the grill. and want to say this as nicely as possible. if your neighbor is going to barbecue, even if it is three stories below you, given the wind blowing the right direction -- it is not a safety issue. the light, air, privacy -- i do not know. it seems as though most of this is upright.

i do not know if anyone is guaranteed a view, like, or even air. as for privacy, and hope to make this as gentle as possible -- that is pretty much what window treatments are for. at any rate. do you want to make a motion, commissioner? do you have any comments, commissioner? commissioner hurtado: i think i am in agreement with commissioner garcia. it would have been nice to have reached a compromise. i would support a motion to move the grill, but that is about it.

commissioner fung: is there a motion? president garcia: we are waiting for you to make a motion, and then we will attack you. commissioner fung: we wind up looking at compromises. and i agree. i thought that some of the comments, perhaps -- given the approach, i would make the following motion -- to grant the appeal, but to uphold the permit, with the following conditions. that the grill be relocated to the center of the building at some point adjacent to the

penthouse wall and that the north rail and the south real -- excuse me. let me restate that. that the north rail be moved 1.5 feet, and that the south will be moved 1.5 feet. >> just for the length of the rail fronting the light well? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> just to be clear, the grill you are moving -- what would that be?

commissioner fung: that would be the east wall of the penthouse. >> in the section between the door and the south? president garcia: that is assuming the grill gets plumbed. would we get any approval if it were -- commissioner fung: if it were portable, no permit is required. this way, right back -- this way, right? the west wall of the penthouse. >> i would be inclined to move

the grill -- commissioner hillis: i would be inclined to move the grill. there are big issues on the railing. >> kevin robinson, owner of 2756. commissioner hillis: if the railings were to move on the north side, and the grill where to relocate against the penthouse -- >> we would have no roof deck because we would have no fire egress. we have to keep a diagonal clearance between the board chairman and -- if we move the railing a foot, we cannot get off the roof deck. i can move it, but not even a.

-- a foot. commissioner hillis: can we stipulate the move it to the point where they lose the 36 inches of the dress? commissioner fung: i understand what she is saying. however, if you do not have to have egress by the code. if that is a single door, it could be located anywhere on the wall. >> i do not think anybody is concerned over whether there is one door or two. there is concern over the railing. the left doorjamb -- that is where the bring he wants to move is. -- where the railing he wants to move is, and that is the point that constricts my fire access. i think i currently have 32 inches.

it is 36 feet in the code. commissioner hillis: 36 inches. >> it can be one panel. i do not think anybody cares. it is just the size of the door -- it does not help us. commissioner fung: i get what you are saying. i will limit that, but i am not sure i have enough votes. i would restate this in the following way. that the rail on the north side be reduced up to 1 foot 6 inches, and it can be less if it maintains clearance between that jam -- the north jam and the corner post.

graphically looking at it, i think it is easily accomplished. she is either going to move it 1.5 feet, or if it is a little bit less, 36 inches. >> to the point where she -- commissioner fung: can maintain legal egress. >> and no more than 36 inches. president garcia: how much does that affect the vantage point that will protect the privacy of

the neighbor? >> i think he is concerned about light. president garcia: that is the light issue. >> i am not sure how much it is going to save. president garcia: i would have preferred studies showing the sun at various times of the day before doing that. commissioner fung: it is not going to do much at all to his light. that comes in from the western direction. president garcia: is that very burdensome? i am not sure how i am going to vote on this. >> i have to pull the railing in and maybe it is 6 inches. i do not know how much that helps the light come through. president garcia: thank you. >> nothing on the south rail? commissioner fung: 1.5. >> the motion is to grant this

appeal, uphold the permit, with the following conditions -- that the gas grill be relocated to the west wall of the penthouse, that the real to the north be reduced up to 1 foot 6 inches or less, up to the point where legal egress can be maintained, and that the south rail be moved the same 1 foot 6 inches. commissioner fung: for the portion that is adjacent to the light well. >> adjacent to both like wells? -- light wells? commissioner fung: yes. >> we need four votes for these conditions to stick. president garcia: before i will vote, if i may make a comment -- look how many people came here this evening because of this.

if ever you are involved in some project again, invite the people to your house so they can see if the closet describe is something else. have the neighbors up on the roof and find out what their concerns are. it seems these compromises we are getting ready to vote on could have been achieved by all sides working together and maybe becoming better neighbors and getting to know one another. having said that, obnoxiously, possibly, aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the permit is up held with all those conditions. thank you. >> we will move on to the last item on our calendar, which is item 11. item 10 has been withdrawn.

item 11 is a pill 12-010 -- is appeal 12-010, protesting the issuance on february 3, 2012, to a permit to open a building. application 2012-3472. you have seven minutes. >> krista shaw, for appellants. i would like to give you some background very briefly on the structures at issue here. i am going to speak very briefly because i want to give most of our time to speak to some of the issues being created by the granting of a permit. the structures are planned at 2323 hyde and 1100 lombard.

they were originally built as a single residents. there were subdivided in the late 1930's, and since then have been occupied and operated separately. the permit at issue, i can show the overhead, would require closure and filling of this door and this window. this door is the only access to the exterior of this home from the permit's west side. it is a very large home, over 8500 square feet, and this is the only exit door from the interior of the home. by granting this fire will permit, you essentially are eliminating an emergency exit from this side of the house. the other door being shown is a mechanical service door. part of the reason we have a ceqa appeal on file is that the building it