i understand they are used to looking out the cross -- out across our property. it is ultimately a light well condition. we are trying to be sympathetic to a mirrored light wall condition. >> the balcony that was referenced, where is that? >> at the fourth floor, at the rear here, this is the roof deck. this is the defacto yard for the upper unit. the upper unit has no access to the rear yard. this is the yard. could this is where her daughter will ride her tricycle in 16 months. i think that is what they are referring to. the railing along here. three feedback from the property lines. it is already set back. they have privacy concerns about that railing looked across to these windows over here. we had actually originally

proposed that to be a solid wall off to the required 40 foot height. planning department decided it would be better to be in open railing to allow light. it is a classic san francisco privacy light trade-off conditions. if you feel like it would be better to go back to a solid wall, we woulit would make no difference to us. their language was a little bit fuzzy, but my understanding was they are asking us to push this railing back further. it is already 3 feet off the property line, and they want us to push it back further so you cannot stand this close to that. maybe to provide some planting there. that is a very disruptive and off or change for us to make as you can see in a plan. if the stairs come up here too a little landing with a door that goes right out to the deck, and the door that goes into the master bedroom. if we push this railing over,

this door will not work any longer. the only way to get through the deck would be through the bedroom. think of this as the rear yard. this the family play guard. this is the public, open space for this unit. it is not a good plan for us to have to walk through a bedroom to get to that. is important to us to keep that door in place there. we would be happy to make that into a solid wall if they even want us to put it up a certain height. that is also fine with us. it is really their choice. >> where there planter's? >> those are the planters. that was the compromise made. there was concern about people standing at the roof deck.

because people being able to look down the rear yard. the initial suggestion was to move the railing back. we went through that and instead propose a substantial planter in that location which would have the same effect. it would keep the back from the railing, but without having this ugly piece of on serviceable roads beyond the railing. that was the compromise we made in that location. considering this as the effective rear yard for this unit, we do not montt to make it any smaller. it will not be useful. thank you. >> potential modifications, one earlier was proposed, across the windows, and then the second one here is you would be open to replacing the open rail to solid

wall or something that would adjust privacy but then the trade-offs would be light. >> yes, absolutely. >> was there anything else for the two potential areas that would you -- that you would be willing today to modify? >> yes we could make those adjustments recently. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. anything further from planning? ok. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will start. rather than discuss our debt -- how dense our city is, one of the more problematic patterns of

our city is the fact that we have zero property lines. this has created in my opinion more problems ever than front, rear, backs, etc. the problem with the property line is not only bthe light wel, but it is usually a correlation with the circulation elements. therefore, the pattern of how does occur affects the overall development cox in this particular.

-- development. in this particular instance, i see that having light wells on both sides is extremely difficult and represents a situation against the rights of the property owners. i am understand the concerns with light, however, this occurs at a zero property light and therefore i am not prepared to modify the situation that much. >> i feel quite the modifications that are offered tonight sound reasonable. i think the proposal that was presented at the start of the hearing is a little -- i mean,

not that it is too late -- but i think it does put -- i think this is a process, and an important one, to attempt to utilize for purposes of resolving disputes and that is why we are here. i think to present a complex proposal on a day for -- without an opportunity for the permit holder to review it and analyze it and potentially come to some position on it, it is unfair and it is not really the most offensive -- most effective use of this project -- process. i am all for people getting together, but i like outreach before projects. i heard that was done here, whether that turned into a productive conversation -- it sounds like it did not for whatever reason -- but i think

the proposal that was presented could not really be given undue attention today -- due attention today. i heard also from the project's sponsors that this has been an ongoing situation for some time now, so i am happy to hear that modifications are being offered today, too. that shows a certain level of effort. my inclination now is to go with what you can get there or, if everyone is willing to look carefully at the proposal you made, then that would be fine. but i do not know that everyone will be willing to do that today. >> i agree. it is certainly not a proposal we could work with to handle this evening. is there anything on that upper floor with the railing and the open rail link you can suggest?

that would help you besides, moving it 3 feet in? obviously, i see their point about the staircase coming out there and opening up. there are two entries, but one through a bedroom. your proposed moving it in 3 feet. are there alternatives like swapping some of this planter and putting in a light well? i think your case is more compelling than others we have heard tonight in that you have enjoyed this year for years, but recognizing somebody could build their is something we have to balance. >> i think we would be willing to work with the architect. i do not know what to suggest off the top of my head. what we do whanot want is a downward you. -- view.

usually light wells are in-arms and hallways. we have an unusual situation. it is living area. i do not know. if they are willing to do something, to help, with the privacy issue. we are just disappointed with a relatively minor change to their plan that could make a big difference to us. the architect assured us that it was not expensive for a major change to the plan. >> you mean the floor -- >> yes. to stack the stairs. he said it should not be a major impact. we have to -- >> it is clearly an impact. it is a reconfiguration of a lot of their space. that is tough to throw on us all at the last minute.

we are inclined to grab onto some of the small changes you proposed like the frosted windows. >> the other question was whether that rail is open rail vs solid. what would you prefer? more light or less privacy? >> you take off some of bacthe planter. at the rear, you would like to look out on your back yard. would you rather that kind of moved over? >> i do not know. i cannot visualize it. i cannot visualize it. i guess we will work with him and see what we can come up with. as long as they are willing to work with us. >> i encourage you to work on

the back deck. there could be some modifications. that is the only light well. that led well is critical to them. having a glass rail they'll give you light -- repail fare will give you like. -- there will give you light. >> we would really like to resolve this tonight. has been almost a year. we need to move on from this. i requested we just try to find a solution right now, here, so that we can move on. >> i think we are willing to go forward. we all seem like decent folks getting along in good faith trying to work something out. i would just encourage you to work together. we would approve this program.

>> yes, i think we need to make it final tonight. >> i would not make any adjustment and . >> or we could do a solid railing to 42 inches + a trellis to whenever height they prefer. those are the offers on the table. and definitely defrosted. we were always planning to do that. we knew that was the right thing to do. >> i have to make a decision right now. >> we would like to appear inclination, at least. >> i think the privacy in this case, because it is our daughter's bedroom. sun room, we only have one bedroom.

if she is in that sun room. >> privacy. ok. >> i think privacy, prefer. >> solid wall is 42 inches. would you like a trellis above that? >> i guess so. >> we will work with you about what material that will be. i know, it is hard. >> i guess so. ok. >> if you do not want, we will scrap it carrie. >> if we say there is one and there is not, we will not be signing off paris.

>> the same thing we did on the other one pair and a six-foot. >> the other one? >> what time is it? >> we definitely do not want trellis. >> our second wedding will be on your debt. is that all right? [laughter] >> is there a motion? >> go ahead. >> unless the commissioner wants to speak. >> the solid rel. that would go upper 6 feet, minimum. >> for what distance?

>> open rail. >> facing the light rail to the north. >> on the fourth floor, right? >> yes. >> yes. >> the frosted windows? >> third floor. >> is that correct? >> therefore in the fourth floor? >> two windows on the second and third floor and the white -- light rail is specific enough. and frosted -- we have had this discussion before. >> yes.

>> is this on the basis that you are speaking to provide additional privacy? >> yes.

>> i just need a clarification on that it is the fourth floor deck railing facing the appellant's property plaline. >> facing the lake well. >> facing like well -- light well. facing the appellant's light well. how much lettuce? >> lettuce up to 6 feet. >> that is from the deck floor. >> yes. >> 42 inch solid railing and up to 6 feet lattice. ok. motion with commissioner hillis.

>> commissioner hillis. >> we have a motion from commthis appeal, uphold the per, with the following conditions, that the windows on the second and third floor in the light well defrosted. that the fourth floor deck railing the 42 inches celebrating the end up to 6 feet -- solid that railing and up to 6 feet lattice. >> it is a minimum of 6 feet. >> of 42 inch solid railing. minimum 6 feet lattice. ok. on that motion, a vice- president. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> the boat is -- vote is 4-0. >> thank you. we can return to item nine. that is appeal 12-055. >> thank you. thank you for your patience. the parties have come to an agreement. we will explain the elements of the design. >> we discussed it in the hallway. while we still feel it was not approved >> we have agreed to go with exhibits c, which is a

combination of the two proposals. this is exhibit c. it reduces the size of the deck on this corner. the one thing we are adding to it, this is a little better, is to make the deck symmetrical on both sides. to balance it on the other side and still allow a place for them to have a barbecue. this protection is only 16 inches. on this elevation, it is 6 feet or less high. we are going to work that out. the bottom of the wall is going to line with the windows -- allign with the wind as.

the goal is to minimize the screen. >> just a clarification, it is this dryinawing that satisfy our needs and estimations. it is the sideline, not depicted -- sight line, exactly where the permit holder has drawn the person with the view. that view is blocked by the proposed wall and stops at this. it affectively eliminates any of the view into the bedroom. that is quite satisfactory for us. on the height, we have agreed it

will be 6 feet or less. less than 6 feet will give us sufficient protection. neither one of us wanted to be that high. we have an agreement it will be 6 feet. >> up to 6 feet. >> yes, up to 6 feet. >> this is based on this geometry we have. if somebody were to lean over, or to go to extreme measures. >> i think we have enough explanation. do you want me to make the motion? i am going to move to grant the appeal, issued a permit on the condition that the quarterdeck

-- corner deck is shortened and a small wall is added. >> i believe there was an addition on the other side of the deck they were requesting. >> that is going to be based upon their application with the building department. >> instead of a revision. >> why do we not just make it? >> we should. and the deck has been increased on the opposite side to create a symmetrical look. i do not think we want to make them come back. >> that is consistent with the

plan. i would like to have those submitted, the drawing you showed us. so we have something to reference. >> ok. >> as exhibit c. is that on the basis of the agreement of the parties? >> yes. >> thank you. looks great.

ho>> we have a motion from the vice-president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with conditions stated in the record with a reference to an exhibit say -- which are referenced in exhibit c and shown in this of middlsubmittal as amended by ha. this is done on the basis of

agreement between the parties. on that motion, to uphold this condition -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the vote, 4-0, this permit is upheld. >> there is no further business. >> the meeting is adjourned.