>> scott sanchez, planning again. so the plans don't show an infill under that, they show the replacement of the post with four-by-four and six-by-six. there is some gradin grating wor that structure to sort of lower the patio at one end of it and raise it with the retaining wall as you get closer to the rear yard to create a flat area. inspector duffy, i believe, had visited the site and can maybe provide better comment as to whether the plans accurately reflect the site conditions. but it seems reasonable what they propose on the plans would be code compliant because they don't have a retaining wall more than three feet in height in the rear yard. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, that's all of my questions. >> clerk: okay, thank you. we will hear from the department building inspection. mr. duffy? >> commissioners, d.b.i. so i got involved in this project and i'm the appellant with d.b.i. one morning and with the contractor and he was explaining that someone had started excavating next door and he thought that it

scott sanchez, planning department. i'd like to echo mr. duffy's comments and thank the planning sponsor. since the last meeting, they've updated their team and have improved the quality of the plans and made access to the property to our staff. they have submitted the required variance application and will be preparing the required section 311 neighborhood notification and hope to have that work completed over the next few months. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if you called in on the phone, please turn down your t.v. or radio and press star-nine to speak. this will indicate that you wish to have public comment. okay. two people are in public comment. let's start with the number ending in 8177. >> hello. would you like to make public comment? >> yes. can you hear me now? >> clerk: so this is on the 22nd street appeals. is this what you'd like to make public comment on? >> yes. i'm calling to make a public comment. i'm in support of reinstating t

scott sanchez, planning department. this is a fairly straightforward permit. the subject project at 14 havens is located in an rh-3 zoning district. it is my understanding the houses were condominium units and were converted sometime ago. there's no side yard requirement in this neighborhood. the rear yard here is generally 45% blocked out, however, it can be reduced based on the depth of adjacent neighbors but in no case can be reduced to less than 15% or 25 feet, whichever is less, so they're showing on their plans of minimum -- 25% or 15 feet, whichever is less, so they're showing on their plans of minimum of 15 feet. the depth grade at the floor level does not actually require section 311 notification. while we do have a very robust notification process, not every project is subject to notice. all decks less than 10 feet in height are not subject to notification unless they have some other triggers such as a fire wall because they're located in close proximity to a side property line, but this project does not appea

scott sanchez, planning department. so just a couple of facts. from my understanding, there was, you know, very certainly a violation with regards to the short-term rentals. i think staff identified more than a half dozen listings. staff noted in their work that the listings were subsequently changed to 30-day rentals. there certainly is a very clear pattern of abuse on the property, from a ground floor illegal unit to this dwelling unit on the third floor to the fact that this hood was removed. maybe the appellant can provide a response as to when that was done because that was not done when our staff visited the site. our staff also did not observe any evidence of a door at that lower kind of second floor vest -- vestibule because mr. patterson said quite frequently it did exist. i'm in frequent communication with my staff, and they indicated no such thing, that they were told by mr. patterson or the property owner that that had existed, and that was removed. i don't know that that would make a difference in our deter

scott sanchez, planning department. just a couple of points. first, the proposed deck does not look directly into the adjacent unit. that is -- the adjacent unit is shown on the plans. it's somewhat unique, and that's the level, that second level is split between the two units. there's the permit holder's unit, which is on the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor, and that second floor is shared with the other unit, and then, they have the top floor, but the deck does not look into those windows, and that's shown very clearly on the plans. that's set back a few feet, probably 3 feet from the windows of that other unit.

scott sanchez, deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy, chief building inspector, representing building inspections. chris buck. urban of forestry and trent, with san francisco public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turn off and silence all phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants and permit-holders are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for berebuttal. members of the court not affiliated have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please e-mail board staff at board of appeals. this is broadcast live and will be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be down loaded from sfgovtv. now we'll swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish

scott sanchez, planning department. so just a couple of facts. from my understanding, there was, you know, very certainly a violation with regards to the short-term rentals. i think staff identified more than a half dozen listings. staff noted in their work that the listings were subsequently changed to 30-day rentals. there certainly is a very clear pattern of abuse on the property, from a ground floor illegal unit to this dwelling unit on the third floor to the fact that this hood was removed. maybe the appellant can provide a response as to when that was done because that was not done when our staff visited the site. our staff also did not observe any evidence of a door at that lower kind of second floor vest -- vestibule because mr. patterson said quite frequently it did exist. i'm in frequent communication with my staff, and they indicated no such thing, that they were told by mr. patterson or the property owner that that had existed, and that was removed. i don't know that that would make a difference in our determination as to the authoriz

scott sanchez, planning department. just a couple of points. first, the proposed deck does not look directly into the adjacent unit. that is -- the adjacent unit is shown on the plans. it's somewhat unique, and that's the level, that second level is split between the two units. there's the permit holder's unit, which is on the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor, and that second floor is shared with the other unit, and then, they have the top floor, but the deck does not look into those windows, and that's shown very clearly on the plans. that's set back a few feet, probably 3 feet from the windows of that other unit. you know, the deck does meet our design guidelines, it's set back fairly substantially from the adjacent property lines. i know the board here has heard quite a few appeals about deck yards and privacy concerns, and some projects that do have the deck right up at the property lines, and in this case, it's set back from all lot lines. it is a small lot, and, you know, perhaps for the size of the

scott. >>> in some counties there are business owners and managers wondering how much longer they'll have to wait. nbc bay area's kris sanchez joins us live from san jose with where we could see those changes. kris? >> reporter: hi there, marcus. a lot of counties under the governor's new guidelines, sporting goods stores are in the list of retailers that can offer extended service. but it depends on which county you're in. nonessential retail like book and clothing stores are allowed to open as long as there are no customers in the stores. in napa we found a business owner who found out he could open under the new state guidelines but decided to wait anyway. no such choice for other phase ii businesses like dine-in restaurants, salons, gyms, movie theaters, and churches, which will likely remain restricted for more months to come in most of the accouncounties. the governor has said counties must meet testing and tracing requirements, must go two weeks with no covid-19 deaths, and much have health care capacity in case infections spike again. and counties must provide protections for essential workers. the public health offi

scott mcgrew. a huge rally on wall street. some good news, minor news, small news about vaccines and america getting back to work. seems to have pushed stocks much higher. >> reporter: i'm kris sanchezt advisory. this fire sparked up in oakland behind the building on oakport. the battalion chief is reminding people to reduce sparking by reducing yard work and barbecuing. drink plenty of water even if you're not thirsty. limit physical activity. cool off with a bath or shower. stay inside. make sure you stay in the shade. if you have to go outside cover your head and use sunscreen. it will be hot through thursday. >> reporter: i'm bob redell in san ramone. bay area renters could receive another life line to prevent their eviction during the covid-19 pandemic. contra costa county, where we're at with marin and santa clara counties will vote today on whether to extend their moratoriums on evictions. you'll recall earlier the pandemic the counties forbid landlords from evicting tenants who need more time to pay the rent because of lost income due to the health crisis. >>> happening today contra costa county courts get back to business. more than a month after shutting down. all superior

scott mcg extraordinary step of masking one of minneapo. twitter saying it glorified violence. you can still read it but you have to read a warning first. an extraordinary move for twitter. >> reporter: i'm kris sancheze-through covid-19 testing locations opening up at cvs pharmacies. this is video provided by cvs of one of the sites. you do have to qualify like working in a high-risk environment or having symptoms. if you do you'll get a swab test to perform on yourself in your car under the supervision of a staff member. a lab will process the test and you should have results within three days. >>> thanks, kris. all right. the sun is up this morning but, kari, i think it's still cooler. >>> yeah, it's going to be a much cooler day and we'reaot of. a lot of usrom the cupertino his over the south bay. a beautiful start to this friday morning and, yes, it will be cooler as we look at our high temperatures in the south bay reaching into the upper 70s. low 80s for the inland east bay with livermore reaching 82 degrees and we'll see some 70s in santa rosa and oakland today. and then as we go into the rest of our forecast we're looking at some rain this weekend. more updates to come. vianey, how is it loo