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 permit for the fire well shows only this door and this window has been impacted on the 2323-building, but the overall plan is filed with a

very supplication at the planning department. it shows closure of all these other shaded windows. my understanding is that that was not part of the consideration when the environmental review was done for this permit. we are asking that you continue hearings to give the parties an opportunity to work out some alternatives. mr. maddux will speak to some technical options by which their project could be changed and our clients' needs could be met. >> i am geoff maddux, a fire protection engineer. i spend my five hours a day at dbi trying to find solutions to fire protection problems like this. i come to it with that in mind. on the face of it, this permit will be very difficult to accomplish the changes that are "required" for 2323 hyde.

removal of the flue -- that is mandatory for the water heater of the building. you cannot remove it. some of the windows that are shown as covered our windows to habitable spaces. -- are windows to habitable spaces. there is required light to those bases. removing those windows does not account for the fact that these are required for those purposes. i think a lot of the reason the plans show the reason to infilled these windows relates to the creation of a new spare serving the roof deck of 1100 -- stair serving the roof deck.

this portion is the only portion that is within 10 feet of the 2323 building, and i think that is the portion causing the arctic. i am not sure why it could not be moved in line with the grade, which is more than 10 feet from the windows we are talking about. commissioner fung: can i interrupt you for a second? hold the time. all the drawings you are showing us -- where are they from? the variance application? >> yes. commissioner fung: please continue. >> the most important reason is very difficult to achieve what the permits says is that exit door. the 2323 building is over the size that requires two exits by about a factor of three, and has two doors. this is the only second exit. to suggest that the fire

protection of the neighboring building, because of a property line issue, is more important than a second exit from a home with bedrooms for adults and children does not make sense to me. i think the second exit is more important than protecting the neighbor from a fire. in fact, in 2001, dbi approved revisions to 2323 hyde and expressly stated -- i 10 number 3 is highlighted here. -- item number 3 is highlighted. it says if you update the windows, they have to be replaced. property line windows can remain as is if the work is not replaced. i think they are admitting that there is a basic problem with buildings on property lines, but because these conditions existed previous to this permit, they

are allowed to remain, unless they physically get covered by the neighboring property. when we build this new -- it covers not on thly the exit, but a number of these windows. i question why the wall needs to be there at all. one solution might be that this wall is not necessary for the portion of the building that faces the courtyard. admittedly, a new building may be constructed on a future permit over those windows. but i can see ways to make this work for both owners without necessarily closing all those openings. president garcia: are you done, before i ask my questions? why could a new means of exit not be created, a new