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 a document 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