, cory teague, planning department staff. the subject letter of determination under appeals tonight was issued by the zoning administrator on june 15, 2017. as outlined in that letter, the dph had conducted an enforcing case at the subject property at 518 tail i don't remember street. this enforcement process ran from march of 2016 and march of 2017, and the settlement included acknowledgement from the business owner that the massage establishment had operated in violation of article 29 of the health code. once the settlement was reached, dph informed the planning department of the confirmed violation. in response, the planning department sent the property owner a notice of enforcement that pursuant to planning code section 202.2(a) 4 no new massage establishment could operate on the property for three years because it had been found to be in violation of article 29 of the health code. however because the violating establishment had already vacated the premises, the planning department could not issue a notice of violation. i

. >> commissioners, cory teague. there is a lot of moving parts to these appeals, so i think it is important to break it down at first. there's obviously two different permits. there's the demolition permit and there's the construction permit, and there's two different types of issues being raised. one are more factual questions about implementation of the planning code, and the other more about the subjective review of the proposal and how it complies or does not comply with the residential design guidelines and other city policies. so on the latter there, you know, the planning commission as was discussed, had their review. you have all of their materials in your packets. i'm not going to elaborate on those issues and regarding the specific design elements of the project and whether or not it meets the residential design guidelines. it's clear that the department and the planning commission feel that the project as it was ultimately approved does -- or is consistent with the residential design guidelines. but begin

cory teague for planning department staff. just very briefly, the planning department did review the subject permit over the counter and approved it over the counter on february 16 of this year. the planner did note that the proposed retaining wall was no higher than 36 inches, and that is principlely permitted within the rear yard and would have not triggered any additional review or public notice. just fyi regarding the fence that was discussed, even i don't believe it's part of this -- technically part of this permit, you can have a rear yard fence up to 10 feet in height and comply with the planning code, but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what in the planning code deals with good neighbor fences? >> i don't think we have anything in the code that deals directly. we allow fences within the yard. like i said, within the rear yard, they're allowed to be up to 10 feet high. other yards and set backs have different requirements. >> thank you. mr. joseph duffy, dbi. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi

cory teague from planning department staff. i think it's fair to say at this point, the only thing in dispute is the notice or lack of notice to the property owner. i think it's important to look at the exact language in article 29 of the health code, specifically, section 29.45(b). this is what it says verbatim, notice to property owner: written notice at each massage business permit holder violation shall be provided to the property owner upon which the message business is located. it is not required to be mailed. there's no required notice of the director's hearing be provided to the property owner. this is simply an fyi to the property owner to say this business which is on your property has been found in violation. we have two dph employees who have either provided written and signed declarations or have given testimony here stating that they provided copies of each of the violation reports to the property manager. i think it's clear that they thought that they were -- they were providing written notice to the property own

, cory teague, planning department staff. the subject letter of determination under appeals tonight was issued by the zoning administrator on june 15, 2017. as outlined in that letter, the dph had conducted an enforcing case at the subject property at 518 tail i don't remember street. this enforcement process ran from march of 2016 and march of 2017, and the settlement included acknowledgement from the business owner that the massage establishment had oped

cory teague, planning department staff. last time, there was some doubt raised as to the accuracy of the plans aof proed, specifically what was shown as the existing conditions and even more specifically along the northern property line in the rear -- the approved had shown that the existing building basically ran flush with the northern property line for the full depth of the building, and that the upper floors, there was a small side set back that cut in at the back. i went out to the site several weeks ago with my colleague, joe duffy, from dbi. we met with the building owner and the applicant, and the appellant, and we went through pretty thoroughly the ground floor area that was in question and also went upstairs, and we were able to determine that the plans had been inaccurate. there was a side set back on the ground floor that was acknowledged by the permit holder. and since that time, they have developed revised plans that more accurately show that existing state. what that means for the proposed state -- and this c

. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, cory teague, planning department staff. the subject property is 188 winfield, in the bernal heights special use district. the property tds have two structures on it. one is a six unit building and the other is this detached three car garage structure. again, there's no brief filed, there were no plans, but luckily, i was able to get plans from our system. they had been uploaded in time so we can go over that in just a moment. specifically this permit was to convert the existing three car garage structure into a single adu that encompasses both floors. the planning department approved the building permit on october 16 of 2017, and it was issued on january 4, 2018 specifically to the appellant's claim bh the ground floor area -- about the ground floor area, we don't have any active complaints on file about any work being done to the garage, so i don't know for sure if -- under what permit or under what circumstances that basement level area was excavated to some degree to add the laundry room. and as much as it's relevant to

cory teague from planning department staff. on september 22, 2017, geddes ulintskis requested to measure the zoning height. on february 27, 2018 the zoning administrator issued a letter of determination that clarifies the following points. first the letter stated that the planning code's way to measure sloping was the following step. such point shall be taken as curb level for measuring the height of the closest part of the building within 10 feet of the property line at such street. at every other cross section of the building at right angles to the centerline of the building or building step, such point shall be taken as the average height of the building elevations at each step of that cross section. the elevations used shall be existing eflss or the elevation used from new excavations encompassing the block. just to paraphrase, what the next is saying when you have an up sloping lot, the first 10 feet, you measure feet based on the height of the lot at grade, at curb level, but once you get 10 feet deep, you following avera

>> cory teague, public hearing grant with the standard conditions. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. >> president hillis: all right. so we'll move to our regular calendar. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that places us on item 10. [agenda item read] >> president hillis: jonas, we're going to take >> clerk: good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing. excuse me, if i could have your attention. i'd like to welcome you back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, may 17, 2018, and i will remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. commissioners, we left off on your regular calendar on item ten. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, commissioners, diego sanchez with planning department staff. increase the transportation sustainability fee by $5 for nonresidential projects 100,000 square feet or larger. before i begin my presentation, i'd like to provide sonny angulo from supervisor peskin's office to present to you. >> hi, commissioners, i k

we'll hear next from cory teague, the zoning

we expect cory teague, assistant zoning administrator who also representing the planning department and planning commission, joseph duffy, the senior building inspector who represents the department of building inspection, and we will be having a special presentation today from the san francisco public works, and jonathan rubing, a senior environmental health inspector representing dph and captain mary zee from the sf fire department. we do have some board meeting guidelines. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phone and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hall way. the board's rules of presentations are as follows. appellants are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebutt al. people affiliated with these parties must provide their comments within these seven or three minute parties. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have each up to three minutes and no rebutt al. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not requir