the affordability of dwelling units. yes, they are different issues when you're basing them on income. how would you apply that in this case? >> if you had $4,000 a month, assuming this is only 1/3 of your income stream and the income stream as $120,000, compared this to your affordability issues. what is 50% of median that you normally use for affordable housing? >> this is ok to use based on the standards we have developed. been you can bring this up to market rates, you can charge whatever you want.

this can be an artificial number or not. >> this house, we know this to be a substitute? >> the recent purchase price was just over 3 million as indicated in the appellants papers. the assessed value of have to be in excess of 1.6 million in order to qualify under the exemption. >> instead of up gaming the system by increasing the rent, they would have to make improvements to the house.

>> in this case, we would revive diminish traders review criteria. >> they wouldn't change that into planning. this would have been called not affordable. this would have affected the whole process? >> had the finding been made that day appraise the this said more than 2.6 million, we would not have made the finding that this was affordable. in section 1 01 0.1, this is a general plan and this is a separate review from section 317.

-- in section 101.1. >> there seems to be a question. we did perch in the house for slightly over $2 million. this would not meet the $2.6 million test. the only thing i want to point out is that this is a matter of timing. this will leave any moment in time. >> do you understand that if you had not granted it at all, you would be in in ease your position now. >> we understand that now.

>> the matter is submitted. >> since the issue was just raised, we don't have an affidavit. i don't know why i was under the impression that this was a female tenant but this is not important. the intent to not live there is there. i don't see how this is not reasonable to apply the criteria particularly given the fact that unless mr. sanchez wanted to dispute this, let's not cause someone to be evicted in order to not allow a dwelling unit merger.

this is a point that can be argued. this really does not apply. we spoke about an overly narrow interpretation. i would consider giving the facts around to the tenant. this would be an overly narrow interpretation. if we decide we can have that, this has to do with the owner occupied, this can be great. the fact that this doesn't have efficiency, i would not to be

someone occupying the lower unit given the way that you are entering the building. if that is not going into the asset column, this does not belong in a liability:. i don't think that there are too many people out there who would consider $4,000 affordable. let's assume that the tenant moves out of here and the banks continue to live there under better circumstances in that

they have any two-unit building which they could legally do. i think a very reasonable compromise has to do with the fact that at some future date we would leave open the possibility that this could be a unit and could be achieved by the appliances. i am in favor of granting this appeal and allowing this to go forward. >> i agree with commissioner garcia. >> i agree.

>> i would move to overrule the department. the overarching policy of protecting affordable rental housing is not certain this particular way. >> do we need to condition this? we will leave this up to commissioner goh. >> yes, i shake -- i think it is importance to uphold the potential for another family. >> --

>> i recommend it dumped in the findings under 317. >> do we have to enumerate or give reasons? >> okay. >> this is not the majority. >> 3 out of five. >> the supermajority to be exempt from the discretionary review process. generally, if the department is recommending approval, three out of five. >> who will do those findings? >> i believe the motion is to overrule the nile, grant the

permit on condition that the second kitchen's utilities be capped and maintained and with findings to come at a later date. >> we are not deciding which commission is meant to be capped. >> corks when not be supporting this denial. >> this should be capped and maintained and updated at a later time.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the finding is overruled. >> item 10. >> item 10, p.o. number 10-095, carol fleming verses of the building inspection apartment with planning department approval. this is protesting the issuance to alter a building, remove replaced deck with a new deck, constructing new debt mr. k sacha the rear, remove and replace partial cents.

>> i would like to thank my neighbors for being patient. this is a matter of fence height. i am just downhill from the property and this nice young couple has bought this property and move dan and is doing wonderful renovations and the neighborhood rejoices in this as did i have. the issue is the height of the fence. if i can show you the prevailing sense of the neighborhood as it goes down. we hope that you can turn on the overhead. we hope that you can see.

this is a grace note of a backyard. on the uphill, and happen to have these photos that were -- with my family. that is how it looked. when i came home in late july on one friday and much to my astonishment i found the same fence and like a 4 foot extension above my sense -- my fence and i was genuinely shocked because they had made no notification of this. this amounts to a 10 foot fence.

this photo was taken at 1:00 in the afternoon and now my rose garden is going into shade for the whole afternoon. i have lived in this neighborhood for 11 years. it struck me as shocking as they could put up a barrier. it seems to me that this construction had a direct effect on my garden and my enjoyment and my property values. shouldn't i have been notified of this construction? this is a real question on my part because i don't know because i was wishing that i had been and that had an opportunity to have some input. i did invite them over and show

them that this was a really concerning topics to me. since we are on a slope, instead of staying to the ground, they put in a deck and then they put in a fence on top of the deck so that this was raised up. my sense is 6 feet. i now have a 10 foot solid barrier on my afternoon wall. i did explain my concerns to them and i asked them to bring it down to two feet. on mount davidson, the sunshine and air circulation is really important. they told me it was permitted, it had a permit. they cannot afford a change, i

told them that i would pay for it. they refused and they preferred their privacy. i called the department of building inspection and i talked to mr. james lee about what my options are. what can i do with this situation. he said that this was not permitted. this is not a good way to start a neighborhood relationship. apparently he came out and inspected and subsequently they were granted a permit to in the middle of august but that was sometime after they actually had it built. so, i don't know what redress is available to me. this is a 10 foot solid sense that blocks my sunshine and i believe i should have been notified and i believe that my

right to sunshine should be protected. >> would you put up the first picture that you showed, the sense with the latticework? would huge rock a line with your fingers as to where that dec is. >> this is on the downside. i'm not sure where their debt is -- a deck is. they can probably show you better than i. this is somewhere behind my sense. >> i was wondering if this would end up being in the middle of the latticework. >> and then they put a fence on

top of it. >> this is on the deck, you would have a clear view of your neighbors? >> if you wanted to, you could go up to it and see in your neighbor's yard, you could. right here, this is solid. if i took down my sense, which i intend to, i think i would have a big cavity underneath where i could probably have an open space. >> you really need to address this. >> let's hear from them. i'm not sure how this will be solved. >> i don't either. >> i appreciate your willingness and desire to keep good relationships with your

neighbors. >> as i told them, that is the most important thing to me. i would like to find a solution so we can both be happy. >> thank you very much. >> i am the co honor. when we purchased the home, almost one year ago today, tomorrow would be when year. we purchase this as a foreclosure and it was kept for repair when we purchased it and we had plans to renovate the entire -- and to make it more livable. we wanted to create a more homey feel. let me put a picture really quick. the overhead, that is the picture of the fence on our

side. there is a pretty significant slopes in our backyard. this is to the east of us, i believe. the grade from the west to the east is about a 70% grade. this slopes downward towards ms. fleming's property. now, this is the height of the fence. we did measure this and the fans tight is actually from about 8 feet and 11 inches. that is important because according to the san francisco planning code, we are allowed a fences up to 10 feet high. that is article 1.2. it says that you can have a fence of no higher than 10 feet in the backyard.

we feel that we are well within that limit, of course we took measurements. we have no personal issues with miss fleming at all. we find her to be quite pleasant. given that the height of the censuses in the standard, we feel that we should be allowed to keep defense the way that it is and it does offer some privacy that we desire. >> it did you consider other designs instead of the pine? >> no, we liked the look of the fence and which understand that some of the sense is there but not all of the fence has that. on the other side of the property, this is about 8 foot

tall on their side and there is maybe a 6 inch latticed there. >> let's assume that you are correct, is there any value to compromising with your neighbor? q. are the new neighbor. have you propose alternative solutions? do you acknowledge that this is impacting and creating shade. >> we understand that we like the look of it. there is no other way to do this. >> thank you. >> that sends runs along your deck and then it runs adjacent to a scare? >> the staircase is right here.

>> is this the end of the deck? >> this is right up behind this. >> actually, this sense and is before you have windows. >> , yes we have windows. >> this does not go across the entire length. >> i notice that your lot is quite large but it goes uphill. >> this all goes uphill. the sense is built on a great so if she was to take out her fans,

this would not be an open face. -- open space. >> mr. sanchez. >> under the planning code, they can have a fence of up to 10 feet in height without any requirement. additionally, they can have decking of up to 3 feet and they can redo the whole backyard. generally, the project is code compliant. one thing that is the concern is that the plans provided by the permit holder, they show that the fence is existing 5 feet and

will be replaced by 5 feet. the plan shows 5 feet, the existing fence. this does not call for an 8 foot fence, which would be allowed, but the plans don't call for that. >> one can make the assumption that this would be the same size. >> >> you are looking at the

permit. i think that one would read this as a five-foot high fence. as you pointed out, the permit itself says this is a five-foot high fence. >> is this measured? we heard that this was measured at grade. >> this is generally measured as an uphill or a downhill? >> this is up on the subject property. this was 8 ft. 11 from the base. i don't know if this is from the great or what we were looking at? i don't know where exactly they measured this from. >> what if there is a change right at the place of the sense? >> you have mentioned this from

the lower end. >> if we do this from the higher end, the person on the higher and would not be able to have a sense at all. this is a really difficult situation. >> this is difficult because a 10 foot fence on the permit holders property would be 25 cents on a neighbor's property. it seems like some kind of averaging can take place. >> is there any public comment? seen none, we do move into rebuttal. >> i don't believe i have anything to say by way of

rebuttal, i was hoping to find some local room so that i don't have that big solid wall of a kind. what it means for me now is that i will have a conflict cents to cover their fence. i don't want a 10 foot fence. in my hearing that i am stuck with this? >> how did you measure 10 feet? >> i have to go by impression because i cannot get on their side of the wall. >> you are saying they yours is approximately 6 feet and this is approximately 4 feet above that.

>> now i would have to build a 10 foot fence to have some kind of harmony along the wall. it doesn't seem right to me that i should be forced to do that and lose my sunshine. >> it was 1 cents before with the latticework? >> yes. >> their permit calls for placing the fence and i see where they build. >> they built a branch in defense. >> mine is still standing and theirs is about four inches inside and their property what do i do now? >> we hope we can givyo