our own retains elements of policy for direction to give direction to the public. can you give us a little background of how we got to this language i wanted be used previously. >> in the central selma eir, there is a similar mitigation that we base this mitigation on which basically has the department and the project sponsor review whether or not saving the projects, that meets the standards is feasible. so then we have them prepare a feasibility report, that basically is similar but not exactly the same as the alternative process. they look at their proposed project, they go through what the project goals are, and then they look at if they were to keep a building or a portion of the building how feasible is that and then staff looks at that and determines whether or not that project does appear feasible from a variety of angles to get if not then there

is a variety of mitigations that are required that are similar to the ones here. the process has been slightly refined to point out what you're saying, which is that if the project does not meet the standards, but it does retain some elements in this additional mitigation. we refined it a little bit to make it clearer since we have the retained elements in draft form, that would be one of the documents we can utilize from the staff's review and from project sponsors to have an understanding about what we mean by that. does not help clarify? >> with a project like that come before the commission, there are many projects that are historic resources that have to go through the eir process, often, almost all the time that comes before the arc. would that be a similar thing. >> of her project was going

through that, if it's not going through an eir process because this is here but then it will not be seen because it's administrative. >> that's correct. they are not going through the fall or process and coming through the arc in that regard. >> our task is to provide any comments and there is two pieces , there is the plan and then there is the two specific projects, and that two specific projects don't seem to have any issues, the impacts have been mitigated print -- unless we have further comment than that they were just pointing that out. do we have any response or guidance to staff on this? >> i had a couple of thoughts, i was looking out the 18 particular properties and it seemed to me that the potential

of those being affected in any significant way was small. that is why i asked about that small district, because, you know, i mean, they are individual sites. someone would, you know, literally have to, you know, by out, you know, 3-8 sites to get a big enough footprint to, you know, because you're not going to build 160-foot high building on a site that is 25 by, you know, 100. it seemed to me that the area was relatively safe, and then, the building that is on mission street, i forgot the number, i forgot the name of it, there is one on mission street that is a substantial building. not one of the one on market street are already significant buildings. it didn't seem like there was

the potential for a huge amount of impact relative to the plan, the proposed plan. that is why i was asking about -- clearly the alternates a don't do anything, and alternate b seems odd. you know, c that was a question, we are and the staff to review the process which i feel perfectly comfortable with. you know, to go through that. you know, my comments are that i don't think any of the alternatives make a lot of sense , relative to the project. that is how i see it. i think the potential impact is very, very small.

. >> v.p. matsuda: i think as a commission we would want to put forward some recommendations. alternative c would be the one we would want to -- >> that make sense. yeah. the three projects when i asked you to restate them. we talked about those three, because as different than the previous information, right? ten south van ness, 99 south van ness and 170 south otis, are we evaluating the impacts during this process here?

>> i think so. >> just to clarify. two projects getting approval through the draft eir. those are the 30 van ness and 98 franklin street, they don't have impacts to historic resources so that is why we did not bring them to you previously. the other projects are getting up zoned. those are the sites where we have identified historic resources. those are called out more specifically. a more direct impact of the potential plan. >> there were two projects that stuck out, and i don't remember what the second one is, but it's one of these three. ten south 2019-001734pta -- van ness, that's the old honda dealer. this scheme is showing a single tower. i recall the post- project is a

double tower did not get involved? >> i think this is just showing the height and bulk. it should be taken one way or the other. >> just to clarify, the two tower scheme would occur if the zoning did not change. the current height limit is 400 feet. >> the reason i bring that up is because we were presented with information on that particular project, as if the resource cannot be maintained because of the impacts to the foundation. if it's a single tower, it could be moved. i don't know where we are at in the process. >> one of the challenges is it is a triangular site. there is not very places to put the tower. >> if there's a single tower, there's more than if there is two. that may be out of the gate, we are potentially not want to see

it again. the other one was a really cool midcentury building. i don't remember if it was 170 otis? >> 170 otis. >> what will happen without? >> coming out of this process, it seems like that building will have to be demolished because one order for a tower to be built there. >> i think there is also, it's a city-owned building. >> it doesn't have the height. >> no, but we are raising the height limit. one of the challenges of that building is the seismic condition. >> it is really just matching the height district to what exists today. right now, the way the parcel is mapped, it doesn't reflect what is on the ground. it's updating the height to reflect what is there. we are not really increasing capacity.

>> you are trying to make it clear with the zoning options, or requirements, or limits are about site? as a project comes forward on that site, are we going to see it again? will there be another draft eir on that? >> that particular zoning increase was not that great though. it would not support a big tower. i think the zoning was 160 feet, that project, i mean, that building is -- >> 85. >> it is up to 150. >> we are moving the 150 feet designation to the portion of the building that is already that height. >> that is what i'm saying. >> we are not increasing the capacity of that site we are just matching what exists. >> 99 south van ness, dotson art deco, storage building right now

that seemed like a very challenging site to add onto, because it is so narrow, you know, it is, as well. it seems like that would be a challenge for a developer to come in and try to do something big there. our young i am not familiar with the scale of it. it's that is why we trust the staff to say, you know, what would be the process there. that seems like it's almost, may it is land markable. it is this an exquisite example of art deco at that time. >> does staff ever have the discretion, assuming that this goes forward does the staff otherwise, outside of the eir

have discretion to refer anything to the historic preservation commission? >> i mean, you have the ability to review and comment on environmental review and relationship to environmental resources. i could do for this to the attorney. but yes, we could, if that became an issue. >> the historic preservation commission request to review any project in regards to its historic resource. if it came to us it would be a review, and it would just be a comment, under this plan, if some historic building came to us it would still just be a, right? >> we have one comment. any others? i think it's well done. very good.

>> we can move on to item number eight, 2018-015774coa at 15, this is a certificate of appropriateness. we will hear from staff first, then you have an opportunity. >> good afternoon commissioners, shannon ferguson, department staff. this is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 581 waller street. constructed circa 1900 and the queen anne's library at a contributor to both parks historic districts. the proposed project is to abate planning enforcement case. in august of 2016, the hpc granted historic appropriateness.

[reading notes] current work undertaken at the subject property does not reflect the design approved by the hpc and was completed without benefit of a permit. specifically removal of the entire roof, removal of all interior structural framework. removal of the entire fourth floor plates, and removal of the entire rear elevation. the project proposes to restore the first 12 seat 11 inches of the room behind the gable at the existing ridge height and existing 45 degrees slope. restore the fourth floor plate of the same level as existing, and restore the rear elevation with framing and new tongue and roof horizontal siding. as well as insert additional skylights at the refer a total of six mountain skylights. in addition, i wanted to note that project sponsors did misrepresent in august 2,018 to

planning staff revision. it specifically states that the dormers to be revised back to the original configuration. staff approval specifically states that the permit is to revise permits back to 315. however the proposed roof plan shows dormers much larger in size and volume. this type of expansion would require neighborhood notification under section 311 of the planning covariate the plan also shows revisions to the rear elevations. the description of work on the permit makes no mention of these revisions. regarding the proposed work to the planning enforcement case, staff has determined that the work and additional new work with the recommended conditions as outlined in your case report will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code.

the secretary of standards and will be compatible with the character defining features of the landmark district. based on analysis, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. dormers be constructed as per the hpc motion, number 315. south elevation as approved for the previous building permit. this elevation is proposed in this permit is more contemporary and compatible with the subject property in the district. new glass panes be from the primary wall. also that though would guard rails be constructed at the roof and roof decks, and a trellis on the second floor of the south elevation. as part of the building permit, planning staff, preservation staff would conduct a final site

visit to confirm and harrison action has been abated. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> i have a question, is there anything that gives you any confidence that we won't be down this same road again? i don't mean personally, i mean, the department. >> the project architect is here. >> can we get a presentation? >> i am eliza, i am the architect to get. >> did you want to address the commission and give us a response? >> well, just to say that this project has been reviewed by the preservation commission and the only visible difference from the

right away is the addition of a skylight, the profile of the dormer from the front has not changed at all. and that during the demolition and during the work that is being done, the house is in bad shape, it is a fixer-upper. the contractors discovered that the framing was not a very good condition. they exceeded what was shown on the plans because they just saw bad framing and they just wanted to replace it with code compliance are framing as well. there was also a requirement for a ridge beam, it would have been easier to build the roof by replacing the roof rather than working with the existing to install it ridge beam. >> that doesn't quite -- it's interesting information, but it doesn't answer my question which is what is there that would allow us to think that the owner, and his troops will not,

once again, violate all of the permits, or the conditions under which it is supposed to fix up the building? >> because the fact that they like to complete the project, the project has been on hold for almost a year now, and they learn through enforcement that this is a terrible thing. they would do what is shown in the plan. they want to finish it. it's been on hold. does that answer your question? >> it is an answer, some particularly satisfactory. >> as shannon explained they will send someone out to a field inspection. i will report to the contractor that that is going to happen. they have the interest, they have goodwill.

they are not trying to slip anything by anybody. they're just trying to get it done. >> we do have planning division that has an active enforcement case on this project. it's part of the conditions of approval, that shannon mentioned, they will be required to have a site visit to make sure that the modifications are followed. tran21 question, are you, and his is the owner okay with the conditions of approval? >> that is the first i heard of it. we would like the dormer enlarged to what our most recent permit approval was. other than that, we are fine with everything. >> i did have a question here.

where there any fines assessed for this? >> this is related to where supervisor peskin came out about historic buildings that may have intentionally, or not intentionally being demolished, or exceeding their scope. >> we do have our enforcement staff here and they can answer that question. >> kelly wong, i'm the preservation enforcement planner , scientific case. there were no penalties assessed because we issued no enforcement, and they did within the timeframe submit a revision permit. and also a new seat of a two ring support before the historic preservation commission. >> are we okay with the conditions as staff has given

them. if we are, the only thing we have to decide on is the dormers >> we have been told that there is enforcement action, i assume that that means that the people representing the department who are supposed to be looking over this will do so with diligence. >> i am unclear about the dormer. the architecture said, before you say anything, i just want to clarify my question. my understanding is that this has to be rebuilt per the original h.p.c. c of a witch has smaller dormers. that is not my question. my question is about, you just asked that you are able to rebuild the dormer to a bigger size. the staff seems to be saying, know that is not the case.

it has to meet the requirements, the smaller dormer that was a requirement before. i think that was one of the questions that commission hyland was asking despite the fact that you may want to bigger, are you okay with it, because to meet the mitigation measures, or the conditions, i'm sorry, to meet the conditions you would have to rebuild the dormers to the previously approved size. that is really the question if you guys are okay with that, or are you asking for the bigger dormer? >> we would like to ask for the bigger dormer. it's like 2 feet bigger. it's easier to build, on page 1.4 a, if you look at the two roof plans, the dormer extends to the property line on the one we would like, it's just in from the property line.

it's just slightly bigger. >> on the southeast side? >> correct. you can see that little notch on the right hand drawing okay. thank you. >> the question for the staff, thank you, is there any particular reason why that is approvable or not approvable from a staff point of view? >> dormers just an increase in size, and going all the way to

the edge of the ridge line, so there is no really, kind of a sense of what the refuse to to be in the back. it goes all the way back. i know we are keeping it in the front, but it would be nice to see a ridgeline and the roof in. >> is this a property that can be seen? >> no. it is not. as you know, both parks landmark district it is the first three properties of face the part. this one does not face the park. no. >> yeah. >> i mean, i guess i'm inclined if this was before us originally, would we have approved it? >> i think we would have. i would be okay with changing this first condition.

i don't know what other commissioners thing. it seems like they have cooperated, they continue to cooperate. if this was before us originally we may have approved it. >> i also wanted to say that i've been in positions where you open up a house, and all of a sudden you find that, you know, it is rotted out. >> this is not the case here. >> that is what we were just told. that is not the case? >> if there was dry rot they would have called the building inspector and they would have issued a notice of correction and there was no notice of correction here. >> i think a larger dormer would require a 311 notice. >> it would. >> that is the issue. again, two options we approved with the conditions or we alter the conditions.

>> i have a question for the architect again. knowing that this -- you have to go through this process, and go through a 311 notification. >> we will go back to what was originally approved to avoid that. we want to move forward. it's been on hold for so long. >> that answers the question. thank you. we don't have to modify anything. >> and make a motion to approve with the conditions as stated. >> second. >> nothing further commissioners, a that has been seconded to approve this matter. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 500. placing us on item nine, case number 2019-001734pta 149 9th street. this is a major permit to alter.

>> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. the application before you is a request for a major permit to at 149 9th street. article 11, category three contributory building of contextual importance located within the regional commercial zoning district. this a corner property is developed with a four-story brick industrial building constructed in 1923, as the headquarters of the western leather manufacturing company. the ninth street façade are both visible from the public right-of-way. this project includes restoration of two window veins on to mystery elevation i work at the roof level including a roof deck with glazed railing and new stair and elevator penthouses. only portions of the new penthouses would be visible from ninth street. all scopes of work proposed in this entitlement were previously reviewed by this commission in december of 2018, part of the building change of use under

h.p.c. resolution 1004. the adopted resolution was included as an exhibit in your packets today. the department has not received any written letters of opposition or support regarding the project. given the limited availability of new rooftop features, the set back provide a for new penthouses and the fact the visible penthouses are fairly common in the visible area. the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article 11 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis found in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval with the following conditions. first part of the building permit the project sponsor shall provide final material samples to department staff for review and approval. second as part of the building permits, the project sponsor shall contact preservation staff for review and approval of the on-site mockup, prior to full installation. third, the proposed trellis shall be restricted to 9 feet 2 inches in height measure from the surface of the roof.

this condition is intended to to shape the roof deck but prevented from rapping the tallest portion of the elevator penthouse as currently proposed. a final note, ninth street has been us misidentified as ninth avenue in your case reports and a couple of instances. this error will be revised in the final motion. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is in attendance i will make a short presentation. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> think you may have misspoken that you said it was involving ninth avenue -- >> did i just now say? >> you did. i live on ninth avenue. >> i was reading into the record we will change that. thank you. >> is five minutes sufficient? >> it is. thank you. good afternoon.

on behalf of the private sponsor, we would like to keep the project at ninth street, and go to ninth avenue. [laughter] i will be very brief. our architect is here, the project sponsor as well. the next, we hope the last step for us in what has been a long process, years, we are very excited to get started. this is the project use on december. we are available with any questions, any additional comments you may have. we want to thank staff, for working with us on this, they recommended approval, as you know. we hope the commission will feel likewise. thank you. >> hi commissioners. i am albert costa. i wanted to say, for the same reasons, if i could have -- this

is a beautiful building, we are looking forward to renovating it. we are going to be placing a new roof deck on the top with an elevator hoistway so we can get people up there. we deliberately set aback from the property lines, so it was hardly visible to people, and we will be complying with the recommendations of staff. we also put out, we did some story poles, and then ended up per staff recommendations lowering our elevator. we are very happy with what we got, and happy to work with staff. looking forward to this project. >> you are okay with the conditions as written? >> yes, we are. i am available with any questions you may have. >> thank you. why don't we open this item up to public comment. any member of the public wish to address the commission? closed public comment. commissioners?

>> and move we approve it with conditions. >> second. >> okay. >> thank you commissioners come on that motion to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> that will do it. we are adjourned.

>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as

63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been

focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about

was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent

of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right.

>> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after

a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and .hank you very much for joining

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information

technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco >> hello. you're watching the show that explores san francisco's love affair with food.

there are at least 18 farmers markets in san francisco alone, providing fresh and affordable to year-round. this is a great resource that does not break the bank. to show just how easy it can be to do just that, we have come up with something called the farmers' market challenge. we find someone who loves to cook, give them $20, and challenge them to create a delicious meal from ingredients found right here in the farmer's market. who did we find for today's challenge?

>> today with regard to made a pot greater thanchapino. >> you only have $20 to spend. >> i know peter it is going to be tough, but i think i can do it. it is a san francisco classic. we are celebrating bay area food. we have nice beautiful plum tomatoes here. we have some beautiful fresh fish here. it will come together beautifully. >> many to cut out all this talk, and let's go shop. yeah. ♪ >> what makes your dish unique? >> i like it spicy and smoky. i will take fresh italian tomatoes and the fresh seafood, and will bring them to other with some nice spoked paprika and some nice smoked jalapeno peppers. i am going to stew them up and

get a nice savory, smoky, fishy, tomatoy, spicy broth. >> bring it on. how are you feeling? >> i feel good. i spent the $20 and have a few pennies less. i am going to go home and cook. i will text message u.n. is done. >> excellent and really looking forward to it. >> today we're going to make the san francisco classic dish invented by italian and portuguese fishermen. it'll be like a nice spaghetti sauce. then we will put in the fish soup. the last thing is the dungeon as crab, let it all blend together. it will be delicious. when i could, i will try to make healthy meals with fresh ingredients, whatever is in season and local. those juicy, fresh tomatoes will take about an hour to cook down into a nice sauce. this is a good time to make our

fish stock. we will take a step that seems like trash and boil it up in water and make a delicious and they speed up my parents were great clerics, and we had wonderful food. family dinners are very important. any chance you can sit down together and have a meal together, it is great communal atmosphere. one of the things i like the most is the opportunity to be creative. hello. anybody with sets their mind to it can cut. always nice to start chopping some vegetables and x and the delicious. all this double in view is this broth with great flavor. but your heart into it. make something that you, family, and friends will really enjoy. >> i am here with a manager at the heart of the city farmer's market in san francisco. thank you for joining us. tell us a little bit about the organization. >> we're 30 years old now. we started with 14 farmers, and

it has grown out to over 80. >> what is the mission of the organization? >> this area has no grocery store spiller it is all mom-and- pop stores. we have this because it is needed. we knew it was needed. and the plaza needed somebody. it was empty. beautiful with city hall in the background. >> thank you for speaking with us. are you on the web? >> yes, hocfarmersmarket.org. >> check them out. thank you. >> welcome. the dish is ready. >> it looks and smells amazing. >> thank you. it was not easy to meet the $20 budget. i checked everybody out and found some great produce. really lovely seafood. i think that you are going to love it. >> do not be shy. cyou know this can run you

$35 to $45 for a bowl, so it is great you did this for $20. >> this will feed four to six people. >> not if you invite me over for dinner. i am ready to dig in. >> i hope you'll love it. >> mmm. >> what do you think? >> i think i am going to need more. perhaps you can have all you want. >> i am produce the that you have crushed this farmer's market challenge by a landslide. the first, we're going to have to tally of your shopping list and see what you actually spend that the farmer's market. >> and go for it. >> incredible. you have shown us how to make super healthy, refresh chapino from the farmers market on the budget, that for the whole

family. that is outstanding. >> thank you peter i am glad that you like it. i think anybody can do it. >> if you like the recipe for this dish, you can e-mail us at sfgtv@sfgov.org or reach out to us on facebook or twitter and we >> my name is andrea, i work as a coordinator for the city attorney's office in san francisco. a lot of it is working with the public and trying to address their public records request and trying to get the information for their office.

i double majored in political science and always tried to combine both of those majors. i ended up doing a combination of doing a lot of communication for government. i thought it would connect both of my studies and what was i was interested in and show case some of the work that government is doing. >> i work for the transportation agency known as muni and i'm a senior work supervisor. >> i first started as a non-profit and came to san francisco and started to work and i realized i needed to work with people. this opportunity came up by way of an executive fellowship. they had a program at mta to work in workforce development type project and i definitely jumped on that. i didn't know this was

something that i wanted to do. all i knew is that i wanted to help people and i wanted to empower others. >> the environment that i grew up that a lot of women were just stay-at-home moms. it wasn't that they didn't have work, but it was cheaper to stay home and watch the kids instead of paying pricey day care centers. >> my mom came from el salvador during the civil war. she worked very hard. when she came here and limited in english, she had to do a service job. when i was born and she had other kids, it was difficult for her to work because it was more expensive for her to be able to continue to work in a job that didn't pay well instead of staying at home and being able to take care of us. >> there isn't much support or

advocacy for black women to come in and help them do their jobs. there also aren't very many role models and it can be very intimidating and sometimes you feel uncomfortable and unsure of yourself and those are the reasons exactly why you need to do it. when i first had the opportunity, i thought that's not for me. my previous role was a project manager for a biotech start up. i thought how do i go from technology to working in government. thinking i didn't know about my skills, how am i going to fit in and doing that kind of work. thinking you have to know everything is not what people expect have you, but they expect you to ask questions when you don't know and that's important. >> my mom was diagnosed with cancer. that was really difficult.

she encouraged me to go to school because in case anything happened i would be able to protect myself. i wanted to be in oncology. i thought going to school it would set me for the trajectory and prepare me for my life. >> we need the hardships to some of the things that are going to ultimately be your strength in the future. there is no way to map that out and no way to tell those things. you have to do things on your own and you have to experience and figure out life. >> you don't have to know what you are going to do for the rest of your life when you are in college or high school because there are so many things to do. i would encourage you to try to do everything that you are remotely interested. it's the best time to do it. being a

young woman with so many opportunities, just go for it and try everything.