>> clerk: planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday march 31, 2022. we are requesting those persons in the chamber to distance as much as possible taking seats in every other row. you must wear a mask and keep it on while in the chambers as well as while you are speaking. hybrid hearings will require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking please mute your microphone. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment on each item on the agenda. comments or opportunities to

speak during the public comment for those calling in or remote are available by calling (415)655-0001. access code, 2487 760 3186. when we reach the item you're interested speaking to, those calling in remotely must press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. those here in the chamber, we ask that you line up on the screen line of the room. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will announce that your time is up and take the next person. we will -- best practices is to

call from a location speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ] first on your agenda is consideration items for continuance. item 1, 1937, 17th avenue

continue. item 2 so proposed to continuance to april 21, 2022. item 3 el camino del mar proposed to continuance. item 4, 460 vallejo proposed for continuance april 28, 2022. item 5, for the pg&e power access acquisition project is proposed for continuance to jul. further commissioners, under your consent calendar, items 6 mission street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to april 14, 2022.

under your regular calendar, item 13, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance -- proposed for indefinite continuance. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed to be continued. those calling in remotely need to press star 3. those in the chamber please lane upside of the room. seeing no member from the public. public comment is closed. these items are before you now commissioners. >> vice president moore: anybody calling in for comment? >> clerk: no. i asked for public comment, i'm

seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue. >> clerk: on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote] that motion passes audiencely. audiencely -- unanimously 6-0. your consent calendar items has been continued. we can move to commission matters item 7. >> i like to start off our land acknowledge that i will be reading today.

the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. any other comments or questions from commissioners. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i like the planning department to acknowledge the following. last week, three times i noticed visually impaired person

struggling up the sidewalk. port bodies were on the construction site which was clear passage on the uphill sidewalk. as stewards of the streets, somebody needs to grab the ball and deal with these unacceptable constructions. i'm looking for the planning department to with work others to address this. i ask for the commission support and ask the department to address the issue. thank you. >> president tanner: thank you for bringing that tour a attention. i think it's something we all observe on our day-to-day life.

i'm not sure if went to reach out to m.t.a. or public works or with d.b.i. or other partners to limit impact of scooters and some of other things taking up room on the sidewalks. >> what i can do, president tanner and commissioner moore, put this on a future agenda of our director's working group. i will include that on the future agenda and report back to you all. >> president tanner: thank you. other commissioner questions or questions? seeing none. we're moving on to the director's report. >> clerk: moving on to department matters for item 8, director's announcements. >> very quickly, i wanted to highlight that the housing element information item is booked for next week. the information has been posted on our website or

s.f.housingelement.org. it's there. it's been there for the past week. i wanted to let the public know that it's there for review. we'll have at hearing next week. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. item 9, review of past events. actually, we don't have a board report because they were on recess. they did not meet yesterday. we can move on it general public comment at this time. members of the public -- >> president tanner: i want to do and update. able new commissioner will be joining us for next week. her swearing in is next tuesday. >> clerk: general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission that are within the subject matter jurisdiction except agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached. each member of the public may

address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number speaker exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment maybe moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public in the chambers please line up on the screen sign of the room. those calling in please press star 3. >> caller: good afternoon. i sent the commission and staff an e-mail with attachments on march 29th around 6:00 in the evening which i hope you will read. the main point of the e-mail was to show how the demolition calculations can be and have been manipulated by developers because the calculations has never been adjusted under section 317b2d. the example in the e-mail was egregious. if the commission reads the screen shots, it is obvious the project avoided the rules not once but twice to manipulate the

existing numeric values. this is the loss of speculation of all houses that is considered more financially acceptable. i think any person using common sense would say regardless of this manipulation by a project sponsor, this is a demolition and now the an alteration. i've been reading the 760-page fact for next week's informational hearing on the housing element. on page 163, there's a new policy to eliminate conditional use for demolition, which is shocking but not surprising given the fact there's never been a discussion about adjusting the demo calcs. on page 525, there's lots to say about the assumptions and statements in this paragraph.

interestingly, the ability of the commission to adjust the calcs and reduce the value is not mentioned as a way that has been preserved. the words demolition and calculations are not used the word gymnastics is used to describe how project designed in such a way just under the numeric threshold. this is what the projects did. section 317 has never been apply by staff or the commission is intended. now it is going to be eliminated from the code for being ineffective. >> clerk: that's your time. any other member of the public wishing to make general public comment. this is your opportunity to do so. if not we'll go to remote callers. >> caller: my name is theodore randolph i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm usually at work on thursday

afternoon but today i have spring break. my comment is to ask, what are you doing here? you are not planning. you are planning the commission for pulling your duties according to the planning code. the word planning is semantic here. i see discretionary use two ceqa item. all items are reactive, project by project busy work. at best opportunity for backseat architecting. who hired you to be architects? you are the planning commission. work on plans. this is not planning. our problems with inequality, climate change and so on are too urgent to be bogged down. we need more projects to move according to plan. i urge you to be a planning commission. thank you.

>> caller: yesterday, before noon, documents were submitted to the secretary of the commission which should be in next week's packet. the documents are from a report by the california state auditor published on march 17th of this year. titlelied, regional housing needs assessment. department of housing must improve processes to ensure that communities can adequately plan for housing. municipalities throughout the state has seen double or triple increases in the rena numbers. current increases have nothing to do with carryover. i urge the department and the commission to read those documents, prior to next week's hearing on the housing elements.

as the audit is highly critical of a.c.d.s methodology. the website was known at the outside lens. because the developers thought they wouldn't build on sand dunes. has the department done any marketing research to determine if tens of thousands of people actually -- [ indiscernible ] or is the housing element and extension of ideology. do those supporting identifying the outside land believe that building on the outside lens will lower prices in other neighborhoods where they do want to live? thank you. >> caller: i agree with theodore's comments earlier,

it's kind of ironic that the planning commission is called that. you don't really -- i spend most of your time reducing zoning -- [ indiscernible ] rather than planning for the city. next week housing element is the most important thing that we're going to do. it's the most important thing planning commission work on. i hope you get it right. i'm worried it's way too low. i disagree -- [ indiscernible ] demolition does little to protect affordability. we should have protection against tenant but protection

doesn't help anybody. that's all i had to say. thank you. >> clerk: last call for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from member of the public, general public comment is closed. commissioners regular calendar. item 10, case number 2019-01416. this is environmental impact report.

>> good afternoon members of the commission. i'm julie moore, planning department staff and environmental coordinate for the lake merced west environmental impact report.

e.i.r. was published on februar. the item before you today is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r. prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the california environmental quality act or ceqa in san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. in my presentation told, i will provide you with brief description of the project site and the proposed project. the project significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures and alternatives that will reduce the project significant impacts. project site is located on approximately 11 acres of 520 john muir drive on the southwest side of lake merced. it city and county of san francisco under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission, sfpuc ownsment project site. the san francisco recreation and

parks department and sfpuc manage recreation activities at lake merced. the former site tenant, built and operated facilities at the site from 1934 to 2015. during these activities, led shotgun pellets and other debris fell on to the site and into the lake. after the gun club vacated the site, the sfpuc implemented the pacific gun club which included extensive swell remediation under the oversight of the san francisco bay water quality control board. contaminated soil was excavated to depths 10.5 feet.

because most of the buildings and structures are more than 50 years old, the entire site was evaluated for a cultural landscape. it's a resource that can include buildings, structures and natural elements that are significant as a grouping. the historic resource evaluation determined that the site is a cultural landscape that appears eligible for the listing in the national register of historic places in the california register of historical resources at the local level of significance. for this reason, the project site is considered a historical resource is defined under ceqa. this figure shows the existing site following the soil remediation and the contributing features of the historic cultural landscape, the rifle range building, shell house, clubhouse and caretakers building. rec park proposes the lake merced project create a facility

at the site and manage through the selection and oversight of a section to operate the facility. based on their conditions, the existing buildings will be demolished. a new community building, restaurant and outdoor patio will be built near the center of the site along a playground, multiuse court, basketball court and picnic area. a new boathouse, boat dock and water craft soft landing area are proposed adjacent to the lake. arborist office proposed that the southeastern end of the

site, new restroom and skate park are proposed on the west side and the facility would have 80 parking spaces. the recreation facility would operate primarily during daylight hours and the restaurant will be open until 9:00 p.m. special events hosting up to 500 people such as weddings and group events will be permitted up to 12 times per year. additionally, the sfpuc team will store vehicles at the the yard. the buildings that contribute to the historic cultural landscape are small, one story wood frame building. these photographs shows the house. these photographs show a

semicircular skeet field and a safety fence which contribute to the historic cultural landscape. this site plan depicts the proposed project features only one of the contributing features of the historic landscape, skeet field will be retained in the reused as a picnic area. all other contributing features will be removed. i like to provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the draft e.i.r. the draft e.i.r. found that the project will be unavoidable impacts on the historical landscape that provide for documentation of the historic resource oral histories and interpretive program. the draft e.i.r. also found that impacts on noise, biological resources and -- the draft

e.i.r. analyzed three project navals -- alternatives. under the no project alternative there will be no change to the project site. the building would remain board up. because they do not comply with building codes, they will be unfit for public use. because the site will remain closed to the public. the full preservation alternative would retain all the contributing features of the historic cultural claim except the shell house. the clubhouse rifle range building will be rehabilitating for using of clubhouse, restaurant and storage. the layout size and locations of these buildings would not be ideal for contemporary recreational uses.

the partial preservation alternative would retain the four skeet fields reusing one as a picnic area. the clubhouse and caretakers house. a new restaurant will be constructed at the the center of the site along with the playground and sports court, dividing arrangement of the skeet field. this alternative would mean more project objectives as more modern recreational facilities would be constructed. the no project and full preservation alternative would reduce the significant unavoidable impact on the historic resource. although the partial preservation alternative would retain more of the contributing buildings and features of the historic cultural landscape, it would still result in the demolition of almost half of the contributing features of the historic resource resulting in an impact that will be significant with mitigation.

the alternatives would have similar impacts on noise, biological resource and resources as the propose project which will be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. the no project would not result in new impacts. weaver here today to receive comments from the public and commissioners on the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, please state your name for the record. please speak slowly and clearing so the planning department can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. the draft e.i.r. for the proposed project was published on february 23rd and the

public review period extends until april 11, 2022. those who are interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing may submit their comments to me at cpc.lake mercedwest e.i.r. at sfgov.org. all commenters who provide their contact information will receive notice of availability of the responses to comments document. known as the final e.i.r. when it is published. if you are providing verbal comments today and you wish to receive this notice, or if you wish to receive hard copy or electronic copy of the draft or final e.i.r., please provide your contact information on the e-mail address above.

this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> president tanner: we're ready for public comment. >> lake merced is part of my district. i will be working with the community on this for over on year. i wanted to say thank you so much on the recreation and parks department and planning staff for the work in this document. it is -- lake merced is a jewel. it provides natural habitat for water, wilderness and fowl and

ducks and all kinds of wildlife including the westside coyotes. it provides recreational opportunities for young people and old people and everything in between in our city. specifically for the pacific rowing club and driving boats. this e.i.r., we support. we to not support partial alternative or the no alternative. obviously, lake merced has been neglected for a long time. over a years we have been able to clean out the led and boathouse that's sorely needed. i'm here to put on the record that the project that is

proposed is not necessarily what the community supports. i wanted it to be on the record when we have the funding to go ahead with redeveloping the side of the lake, we want to make sure that the desires and the needs the community are reflected. the pacific rowing club has been a point of access for under served youth to get into rowing. which has traditionally been an activity that has been more exclusive because of the expense. they have a waiting list during the summer that they can't fill. at the current facilities are very neglected and dangerous. the opportunity to move thanks to the other side into make them have the capacity to serve not just the need that we currently have but to grow the access to the lake. it's really important.

i'm just here to say on the record that i understand that the rec and parks they don't need to put it in the e.i.r. the community did have lots of input about this. i wanted it to be on the record with the planning commission that we wish the facilities that we're presented in the e.i.r. included a larger boat dock and space for more boating because that is what the community currently needs and that we're hoping that in the future as we make this board more equitable and access to west side park resources, more equitable. we can just grow our capacity and build our infrastructure to make that happen. thank you so much for considering our little corner of the world. i want to thank dick morton and coach sam nelson with the rowing

club for participating in this process. >> president tanner: thank you. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. you can just line up on the screen side of the room. we'll take you all in the order that you line up. you'll have two minutes. >> caller: hello. my name is emily, i'm the program director at pacific rowing club at lake merced. i represent all the rowing communities there. the adult rowers are involved. i've been involved with the rowing community at lake merced for 20 years. yes, that is over half of my lifetime. i would like to request the modification to lake merced draft e.i.r. of the addition of a much larger aquatic center where the former skeet fields of 8 and 9 are located. i think pacific rowing club really shares the same

objectives as the project and believe we can fill great portion of them. i was just little -- i was born and raised in san francisco. i went to rooftop to lowell, spent my summers -- i love my city. i really love my program. i want to get rowing into as many people lives as possible. i think it can benefit anyone no matter where you come from, who you are. i want to see that happen. especially for the youth being able to get recruited to go to college, like the doors open. i was recruited uc berkeley. it's incredible how much rowing changed my life. i would say this process i've been feeling little blocked out by not really knowing what's going on and having comments not

be heard. not knowing what we need to do. we want to create a great community center at the lake and make lake merced a tremendous force. we need to be told what we need to do. we're ready to do it. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm sam nelson, i'm a 19-year member of the rowing community. not 20. born in san francisco, went si. i speak for myself here but also as part of the long alumni group. i'm also a nurse at s.f. general in the icu. i've been busy the last couple of years. i want to one final note in my own introduction, i have specifically studied d.e.i.

efforts in sport of rowing. bringing the sport to the widest population possible, not just people of color, it's a geld mine. i think san francisco and lake merced can really do that. the current facilities just don't allow us to do that. the proposed facility and the plans simply don't provide that either. 3000 square foot space for paddleboards and kayaks are division what this lake with provide for the community. i like to reiterate too, something 14,000 square foot facility this that southern most portion, simple structure would provide future resources for rowing, veteran rowing, adult rowing and comprehensive rowing. they agreed to move the arborist

facility, which is sticking point in our concerns. that sounds incredible. i wanted to thank you for your time. it's a huge amount of work you have to do. that document is impressive. thank you very much. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm also here on behalf of the pacific rowing club regarding the development of lake merced west. i didn't realize that representative melgar will be here. i appreciate everything she said. i want to reiterate everything that's been said already. the facility that's been drafted up for this e.i.r. is a bit on the small side. we are trying to grow our program and try to help the community more. we started an adult program six months ago or so. we've gotten people who rowed before and we've gotten people

who haven't rowed at all. we've gotten people who coming out to row with their kids. they're making these connections and they are doing all these things that -- sorry. they are making big influence on their life. i was the first person in my family. graduated from a four-year college. rowing definitely opened the door for me to do that. it will be great if we could have more opportunity and bigger facilities to see our vision and help more people and bring our community together. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon

commissioners. rich, nice to see you. you pulled me with my day off. usually you'll see me with a nice fresh shave and a coach. i started rowing in 1990. i stopped, didn't have a chance to pick up an oar until last year. what i can tell you, we have a once in a generational opportunity to change the face of rowing. nothing has changed in rowing from my perspective over the last 30 years. in san diego, lot of similar faces, lot of similar tribal contingencies with regard to teams. i think sport of rowing has an opportunity to change the nature and sport and the ability for people to participate at different levels. i will tell you that i support the e.i.r. in its full capacity

but as everyone mentioned before, there are some key architectural distinctions that will make a boathouse slightly larger and functional and inclusive. i read the 800 page e.i.r. report this morning. let's do it. i appreciate your time. specifically the cancellation of -- specifically theexclusion ofr boathouse, got me up out of bed to share my comments with you today. -- can i put this in the record? >> clerk: yes. thank you that concludes comments from members was public. we'll go to remote callers. you need to press star 3 to begin speaking.

>> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm andrew howard. i went to frederick burks school. later in the day at our house on mt. davidson, even here, 2.12 miles away, we can hear the gun reports. from here it's more ominous, it comes in the direction of the elementary school or lowell high school and the fear of another school shooting is present. now, recreational area is being

planned on the parcel immediately south of the gun range. this cannot be right. imagine the family on the ropes course and gunfire erupted nearby. the mom with ptsd with her service in afghanistan is right there. the impact of this range on the project been considered? thank you. >> caller: good afternoon planning commission. my name is webb powell. i'm a rower myself. long time resident of san francisco. i want to thank everybody for their work on this project. it's a terrific opportunity for san francisco on the only body of water that we have that can do some of these sports that we're talking about. we do have lot of opportunities

for tennis courts and basketball courts and parks. i want to thank supervisor melgar for her unbelievably flamboyant -- addressing the fact that the needs and desire of the community is not being met by this e.i.r. i was very disappointed in number of community meetings that were held by parks and rec. they did not listen the needs of the community. supervisor melgar, thank you and please, keep pushing for the right thing for the city and for the community. it seem like the park and rec department and the property manager had a train on the track and able to listen to people.

i want to thank you. please know, we all support this as a city, we need people like you to make sure it doesn't change. thank you very much, commissioners. >> hello, commissioners. i want to echo what was said before. thank you all very much for all the work that you put in this project. it is so important to us which is why you seeing this huge ground swell of community support. the space on the lot for larger boathouse is insufficient. i wanted to add that the community of not just p.r.c. has grown so fast and vibrant that we are more than willing to leverage our community in order

to create a ground swell to push any new project through financially. we're not asking for any major boathouse. we're asking for the space to be allotted for us. that's the most important thing for us. foggier -- thank you very much. >> caller: supervisors thank you so much for your time. i'm leslie lambert. i'm currently a parent and rower. i have been a part of the community for close to 10 years. i have a son who is now in college, he went through the program in high school.

it was absolutely life changing for him. it takes lot of time to be a good rower. it was wonderful that he was able to spend time in such a big place where physical health is such great values. i have a second child is in middle school who has joined the program. it's been such a joy to see over the past few years, not only has grow -- rowing club, they expanded the program to support younger kids who don't have a ton of opportunities in middle school that are really community-based.

i think it's such a special place. the middle school program at pacific is incredibly robust and incredibly diverse. much more diverse than -- [ indiscernible ] i started rowing as an adult about six months ago. i do really appreciate the support with the e.i.r.. >> clerk: thank you, that's your time.

>> caller: i'm a san francisco resident. my son dennis has been a member of p.r.c. and the rowing club. i'm calling to support the draft e.i.r. and add my comments in support of supervisor melgar and the speakers from both rowing clubs. i'm requesting that somebody within the public service reach out and let them know the best way possible to bounce their ideas in this process. lot of work was put into the adding comments to the e.i.r. when it was being handled by park and rec. for some reason those comments did not make it in this analysis in front of you. i would ask you to take that on board and it would be fantastic if someone from it planning department would reach out and

provide that community service to the interested parties. i will add my comments in a letter for the record. thank you very much. >> clerk: last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional request to speak from pubs of the public. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. this is for your review and comment only. >> president tanner: i want to thank all the callers and those who are here in the room. thank you supervisor for joining us. i want to support your comments. i want to thank staff as well for your very thorough review as

usual, very comprehensive e.i.r. certainly, i think what if i understand the e.i.r. correctly, the larger boathouse was considered but was not included because it didn't have additional environmental impacts by having a larger boathouse. i can appreciate the concern and the desire. if you change between now and in the future expansion, incremental made, then the environmental is not the hurdle that we have to get over to have additional space. i want to acknowledge those comments and we hear what you're saying and your perspective. only thing i can say, i can't wait to go to this park. it looks really fun. i will look to other

commissioners. commissioner koppel. >> vice president moore: public comment has been extremely important and thank you supervisor melgar for this discussion right in the center where we are. you need opportunity to reconsider a major public open space. these comments very much echoed what i experienced doing treasure island e.i.r. most

recently with expanding public access for city youth in that particular case canoe and surfing. we had the review of the board request for considering the rowing and swimming. thank you supervisor melgar for your comments and putting it right in front. my second comment is an appreciation of historic preservation. i want to support and ask the review through the equity lens into our group of responses. the fact that ramaytush ohlone, are indeed the historic occupiers of this land.

i would hope that all of us embrace that thought. going from there, i saw the comments on preservation opportunities and no project alternative. i don't want to get into detail. the e.i.r. sort out how we can minimize impacts and maximize reuse of the site. with that, i want to go a number of points that i heard made over the past three or six months,

particularly with project impact on not just the site as it is but on the context in which a site occurs. that is lake merced at large. how does that impact not just on the site but habitat is a matter of looking at the lake. how does the project serves social equity? remote location of the site makes it difficult to city at large to come here and might need public transportation. only expecting people will come here by car, creates burden. we all know that the need of open space in this particular form that is increased and come into strong focus and the

ability of people not having their own spaces. finding access and accessibility to this newly open space, i think that's something e.i.r. should consider. there are concerns about the site including that rec and park seems to say -- [ indiscernible ] that concerns me there's concern that the facilities, the restaurants and numbers ever people that are expected to this side of site, make it too much enterprise that can only be supported certain segments of the population but not by everybody. i like to really see close analysis of what is really expected even data what is required to make this viable and

successful enterprise. i like to deemphasize entrepreneurial part of the open space opportunities. one ask i have about the e.i.r., i found it more difficult to read through the alternatives without having the pictures which describe them right next to them. in other e.i.r.s, we have mostly a matrix at the top shows small form what the alternative is in column form summary of impacts. in this case, we have things

very much thrown together and you have to go back-and-forth to get to the imagery, which explains which alternative you exactly looking at. [ please stand by ]

i was trying to find the club to roll and i was trying to drive in both scenes and the one thing i could find was in oakland and south san francisco so i ended up joining a dragon boat team and south san francisco and then ended up quitting because it just took a lot of my time. dragon boat and rowing takes a lot of your time and i'm working out, by the way. i believe you have to practice

for times a week for that. and by the time i got to see the kind of facility we had in south san francisco and here that this facility is 3000 square feet is not enough because the boats are longer and there's also some of the storage for the equipment needs to be there. so i do support them having a bigger facility for the rolling community because that's what's needed i think in san francisco because we don't have that much recreational activity around here and if there are they are pretty expensive in terms of membership . so i'm excited to see that a committee facility is going to be improved in this area and i have also in my free time have hiked around the university so really beautiful area and underutilized at the same time . i do have also in terms of the eir and the kind of analysis

that's been done in terms of the biological resources and how a biologist can be part of this during the construction time. i think there are some good mitigation measures being done here. however i do also want to emphasize in terms of the usage of these let's what's being proposed in front of us because i do want to highlight in terms of this open space of how it's going to be used for public open space and the recreation activities rather than the restaurant and that's something i feel like that perhaps included in the comment is the effect of the habitable effect of the referendum especially if there's going to be 500 fitting in this area, how's that going

to impact on the biological resource aroundhere . and if we're going to also, i would an commissioner moore and her comments around the racial socialequity in terms of accessing the area . i think we need to emphasize as well the public transportation access and other forms of transportation aside from cars . so in this for me i would emphasize on the open space and recreational use of this area then the restaurant use >> thank you, commissioner diamond . >> thank you. i too want to thank supervisor nice to see you in front of your old session. two sets of comments, first is as i understand section 283 of the eir, our only input is to review and certify the eir.

we have no input on the actual decision as to what is built . that being said, especially in light of the comments that we heard today i feel like it's important to ensure that in the response to comments that they take all the steps necessary to address impacts that would come from a larger facility so that if the decision-makers ultimately do go along with the wishes of the rowing club that are not held up by having to redo any documents. that this document should be brought up explicitly brought enough to cover that solution if that's where the ultimate decision-makers decide to land. i also on a separate note want to say even though we don't get to approve the contract, we

just are defined as a eir that i am excited about this projec . it opens up an incredible resourceto a much broader swath of the community . it's a very very intense use of the site in the sense it allows for multiple uses and i appreciate that the project designers are going to insure this facility appeals to as many people as possible and that strikes me as particularly important as we embark on an effort with the housing element to increase density, probably on the west side. we need to make sure we have increased recreational facilities as well to . so i am very excited to see this project come to fruition so thankyou . >> i see vice president moore has her hand up again. >> i had forgotten to mention something which i have injected in all discussions about

nightlife use and recreational open spaces near the coast, that we are very mindful of not having night lighting and distract in this area. the view of the city at night should be left illuminated in this part of the city and basically reflect the open space that it represents.so i like to put this to record on excessive lighting. >> i add my voice to support thatcomment in thinking about the directionality and intensity of lighting for the park at night . i don't see any other hands from other commissioners so i think we already concluded.

i want to offer again tothe supervisor and others who came into city hall we appreciate you being here with us today . >> great,thank you. this places us on item 11 , 282088, 2742 mission street, this is an informational presentation . >>. [inaudible] good afternoon president and members of the commission, rich prey representing on behalf of lind aiello holman . before you is an informational item related to a conditional approval on the home sf object

authorization located at 4742 mission street . on march 4 2021 the planning commission conditionally approved a home sf project at 4742 missions street through planningcommission motion 20868 . consisting of demolition of an existing vacant approximately 7000 square-foot commercial building located on the lot and new construction of a 45,000 square-foota story over basement , 74 foot six inch tall 46-year-old unit mixed-use building with approximately 2400 square of commercial space on the ground floor and mezzanine. at the time of the hearing the landscape design ofthe rear yard had not yet been developed and revisions to the roof deck were requested . as such a condition of approval was imposed for requiring a landscape land and revised roof deck come back as an informational item for review . before the commission today for

review and comment our plans reflect the reduction of the usable area of the roof deck from approximately 3997 feet to 3112 square feet. by setting back the railing from the building and providing a landscape buffer and a landscape plan for the usable open space and rear yard of the property. the plans also include a copy of the ingress and egress recorded on the property. action by the commission is required and the like to introduce you to the project sponsor is prepared a presentation . this includes a staff presentation and staff are available for anyquestions, thank you . >> thank you commissioners, on behalf of the project sponsor if i could get the computer screen please. thank you. many of you may remember that you approved the project at

4742mission street last month . as mister craig mentioned it's a home sf object with a 47 unit building with 25 percent affordable unitsand as part of the home sf approval we were granted a floor height up to 65 foot . the property has a unique condition in that the rear of the property is subject to an emergency egress providing access to leo street. soconsidering this the commission asked that the project come back for an informational hearing once the final design of that rearguard was developed . and so you'll see on the screen and in your packets in the plans there is a hard scape separating the rear wall of the

project and landscape area at the rear of thelot . this allows for the required progress while providing open space for the project resident . we work with the neighbors, they agreed to this design and as thesupervisor mentioned we've updated the easement . we got it all down on paper so everyone is clearly on board with changes or the new design. the commission also had questions about the final design of the roof deck which we have on the screen right now. we have since your last hearing pulled the deck five feet off the light well toprovide some privacy to neighbors . in addition to the existing setbacks that are on all sides of the building that were there at your hearing last march so we welcome any comments the commission has as we pursue final approval of our permits and thankyou, we are here if you have any questions . >> thank you, that concludes the project sponsor

presentation and we should open up public comment. any member of the public in person or remote would liketo speak , pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing the requests, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you . >> i don't see any commissioners with raised hands yet. i don't see anybody raising their hand.>> if i may, i have aquestion . the drawing is actually by number, 5.1 and i'd like to know on the right side in the upper drawing, is there any intent of landscaping or some form of transition to the adjoiningresidential building ? it just showed the last one protected. >> sfgov tv, could we get the

computer screen again? we're looking at the same page at the same time, if you specify which area of that top plan you're talkingabout . >> this is actually to the east. that would be the right side of the drawing where you see the easement coming through and that particular area does not have any indication as to landscaping, hard-hitting, whatever . i'd just like to know. >> translate. >> thank you commissioner more. it's not clear in the plan but the intent for that area behind the drive file is to continue the hard scape that's shown in the upper part of the rear yard so that square design, that's intended to be continued right behind that drive out butthat's not clear and the plan . >> what is the reason for

keeping that hard scape, any idea? is it permeable hard scape or one going through the joints or what is the idea there? >> thank you for the question. and i hope i'm responding directly to it. the intent of how design and you see how it's diagonally stepping up towards the rear is the dark space above is where the adjacent building is we need to provide the hard scape to the gate on the fence that gets you behind the building above the site. and the question about the materials, they will be papers. presumably there will be the ability to absorb storm water

and other water between those papers. >> i'm just concerned there is no noise continuationbecause you have residential buildings to the east and to the right . and i just hope there would be some green along the fence to get a visual barrier because we have a change of landingshere . that's justan observation and you may want to think about that . >> thank you commissioner and as i said we're stillworking with staff on this . we need to provide that access it'ssomething we can work with prior to the permit issuing . >> that would be great, thank you so much. >> i had an commissioner morse, thinking about whether it's promises or anything along the drive file that could take up space so you could have some vertically adding less but it's not picking up the ground floo and just decided the comments

on permeability being a key priority , whenever we do get to the lane, hopefully more in the future than we have in the past making sure we're not letting that go into our storm drain and out into the ocean. i want to thank staff for working with the project sponsor andi'm happy to see the progress that'sbeen a happy to see a home sf project so thank you forbringing more housing to our city . any other questions from commissioners ? i think this is concluded . >> very goodcommissioners. that will place us on the final item on today's agenda for item 12 , case number2021-003326cua, 491 23rd avenue . >> before we go tothe staff presentation unlike commissioner diamond to make a disclosure . >> thank you very much. i wanted to let the commission and the public know that the architect of this project,

david marlette is an architect i have retained personally for services. that engagement terminated almost a year ago. i do not believe that will affect my ability to evaluate this case impartially but i did want toalert the commissioners . >> thank you commissioner diamond. with thatyou can proceed with the presentation . >> good afternoon commissioners,greta gunter . the project at 491 23rd avenue includes the alteration and expansion of existing restorative single-family dwelling from approximately 1963 square foot to 2342 square feet and the addition of an approximately 644 square foot accessory dwelling unit on the

first floor. the project will increase the total number of units from 1 to 2 and increase the building to 2986feet . project is located between anza street and geary boulevard in an rm one zoning district. the product would not maximize density and will cost existing units less than 2000 square feet larger in size with an rm one zoning district. thus requiring a conditional use authorization under the interim zoning control for large residential projects . the existing dwelling unit will continue to occupy the second and thirdfloors and total 2342 square feet . the new accessory dwelling unit will occupy the first floor and total 644 square feet. the project includes two new class one bicycle parking spaces and 52 square foot private debt and 196 and a half roof deck for the dwelling unit and i'm an approximately 372 square foot shared yard .

to date the department has received no correspondences from members of thepublic . the project will create one new dwelling unit to increase density from 1 to 2 units there will not be a loss of rent control unit, single-family dwelling units are not subject to rent control and will be fully retained . the proposed project is code compliant, compatible with the starting context in terms of massing and further will not be visible from the public right-of-way. the addition at the rear has been designed in a way that is sensitive to the adjacent neighbors and maintains privacy and fully matches existing light wells. the department finds the project to be compatible and unnecessary and desirable and recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation . >>i think the project sponsor

has a chance to present .>> when you start speaking, sfgov tv should shift to your slide. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is david marlin, i want to thank the staff for their presentation of ourproposal to add an accessory dwelling unit and main dwelling unit at 491 23rd avenue . >> can you pop the time for a second? the screen maynot be showing your project on the computer . >>. [inaudible] >> i will reset time is it in

the usb? >> sorry about that. i guess i have my packet. >> we will have our staff share your presentation. >> we can look at those. >> how hand those out right

now. >> can you share josie's screen? she's sharing the slides. >> perfect, thank you. >> then if you want to advance theslide . >> thankyou . go analog.

okay, thank you. good afternoon again commissioners. i want to thank the staff for their presentation of our proposal to add accessory dwelling unit, expand the main dwelling unit at 23rd avenue , constructed in 1950 the home is currently 1963 square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. it takes up 80 percent of its short depth and even encourages about 42 inches into the rear yard setback. it has been on remodeled and added onto over the years making the current plan and efficient and out of sync with the ownersneeds . the current owners are a family of four who have lived in the house since 2004. next please. they wish to remain in san francisco to raise their growing family, to achieve this goal financially and physically theypropose to add an edu to

modestlyexpand the main dwelling unit to accommodate their needs . want to improve the home safety, code compliance and energy efficiency .our proposal is to create a one-bedroom edu, remodeled the spaces and locksthe primary bedroom and at a bedroom for the kids and two bathrooms . next please . our project is 1023 square feet of conditioned space of which about a third page 79 is in the primary unit and 644 in the adu. the footprint expands 256 square feet but only along the side of the property adjacent to a blind wall that our property shares with 485 23rd avenue. because this exceeds the 2000 foot for a main dwelling unit that is not maximize density under zoning control and we're seeking a conditional use authorization to add 2022 square feet of space to the livingunit.

the adu is proposed in an unfinished basement area in the rear ofthe building . the unit is accessed from a tunnel on the north side with an alternate entrance . the size as you can see in the plan is maxed out betweenthe existing garage wall, rear yard, required access for an art and south neighbor and south neighborhood stairwell . next please. upstairs the rooms are basically untouched in the front. a new kitchen is added and the side alleyarea and bathroomis relocated in the front hallway . a new stair connects the living level to the garage and the bike well in the south is preserved . on the upper floor the primary bedroom is expanded with a kitchen intoa current roof deck area. two new bathrooms are created and one new bedroom . finally, an existing roof deck is expanded on new rooms but stillunder 200 square feet . and some, there was nothing excessive orexceptional about this . it provides four bedrooms, 3

and a half baths and 2400 square feet for a family of four. next please. in preparation for the hearing we surveyed properties and roughly 200 foot radius to understand our project fits into the neighborhood . our survey included 120 addresses and55 buildings and we asked the taxassessor data for the building area .next please . of the 55 buildings before or compatible two hours either as angle family houses. of the 22 unit buildings, 11 are solid ground proposed projects and nine are larger in other words we're pretty much in the middle and we don't feel there's projects are in any way an outlier. next please. drilling in deeper our proposed building is only110 square feet larger than the average two unit building . in addition to this being a modestly sized addition, there

are other considerations that we feel supports our application. although ourproject could not create a three unit building it does add to the sanfrancisco housing stock . no neighbors haveopposed our project , the expansion is not visible from the street and the buildings are larger than us . the project adds no height, no depth with almost nochange to the 1915 building fagade . the projectprovides needed safety and code upgrades for the building as well as improving its energy efficiency .the neighbor at 485 23rd avenue is completing a larger expansion with a 2900 square foot main unit based on their permit filed in 2018. application was filed three weeks after the zoning control took effect. their project demonstrates there is recent precedent for a main dwelling unit of more than 2000 square feet in this neighborhood and on this block of their dwelling unit is not feasible within the volume of

the existing unless the concept of the main dwelling unit is abandoned entirely and the current ownersanother whole thank you for your time and we're available for any questions . >> thank you, that concludes projectsponsors presentation. we should take public comments, members in the chamber i don't see any . you can line up on the screen side of the room, any member of the public attending remotely please press star 3. seeing no request to speak from any member of the public public comment is closed and the item is nowbefore you . >> i think the projectsponsor for a concise use of yourfive minutes this is really well done . any comments from commissioners ? mister diamond was before i believe onher disclosure . commissioner koppel. >> greatjob and very tastefully done .

>> we have frank fung, commissionerfung . >> is miss claudia there? >> she's not in chambers online. >> perhaps somebody else can bring forth. when we had the discussions related to the policy behind this staff had indicated there was one project upon which the policy was based going forward. are there on number of other projects similarly to this one? >> give me a number ofprojects that are similar . subject to interim control. >> right. >> just to clarify these are

interim controls that supervisor basket introduced and were passed. these haven't been necessarily before us as this is the second case we had, i believe it's the second we had implementing these controls. but i'm not sure if we have others pending. >> commissioner fung, this is technically our fourth one of these and there's none others pending in the northwest area of the city and as far as i understand and the northeast there's not any right now. >> thank you. it's a contorted way of having to deal with such a small addition. >> i just want to add my voice to that and for vice president more, this object is very tasteful, very modest addition to a home and we are super excited and happy to see

especially a dwelling unit that's well laid out with access to the rear yard and it's two-bedroom so i'm happy to see the one-bedroom edition. i'm just sorry our city's policy is a minute addition to have to come to a conditional use hearing. so i'm glad to hear there's not many in the pipeline right now but i don't know if that's a functionof happenstance or if that is a foretelling of whatwe will see . hopefully we can think about this policy together . i know it's interim now but before it comes even more long-standing. commissioner moore.>> i would like to ask the architect the question. this is the question, we asked quite a few years ago and i wonder if commissioner fong remembers these questions and that is in fact a question that the. [inaudible] adu is still connected to the second floor,

given the fact there is an indication of a door that through the store would remain locked. that's indicated on drawing a 1.1 which gives the adu ability to come out of the kitchen and step into a landing that gets into the second floor. since i see the stairs of the second floor and open stair. that means that these two units could be easily connected but it's integrated into the use of the housing. that's an observation that you are very much to to a few years ago. mostly being freestanding and on their own, it raises the question, the second question i

have is is the entrance to the adu going for an exit tunnel does not quite have the prominence of an independent entrance that we would like to see .three feet is barely. somebody with the right shoulders heading outside the wall. the questions i think are importantfor us to consider , first and foremost what what these indicate that this could be actually a single-family home rather than adwelling unit . >> can you address the chair case? >> thank you foryour observation . starting with the tunnel. obviously the adu requires its own independent access to the public right-of-way. san franciscoyou're dealing with 25 foot lots . the car parking with the single car garage and the existing

fagade not wanting for both budget regions reasons and maintaining as much as possible the original fagade to do too much alteration to that.so you are correct in your observation that the front door from the street is fairly discrete. it's not express. it doesn't interrupt the fagade. and the three foot tunnel is the trade-off when we can certainly consider whitening it but it's a question of trade-offs with usability of the garage and functioning as a 25 foot lot. regarding the door at the base of the stair, our intention was not knowing as a potential landlords whether they would be sharing car parking or the bike parking for the tenant. not having them go outside and

comeback inside it seems practical . as the occasion may arise quite often landlords have good relations with their tenants so it was more just because of the practical contingency kind of thinking if it'sraining then you can get into the unit in that manner . i think that's the intention, thank you. >> want to address the question pleaseabout the open staircase ? there should be images through those future units. it would be a wall and not an oak railing. that raises the question about why the store is where it is. so they have an immediate entrance from the tunnel, i believe that was not necessary and shouldn't be there.unless you are prepared to have the staircase going from the garage to the second floor being

basically a staircase otherwise it's hard to believe somebody has an equitable relationship with their staircase into the garage. >> your point is well taken. we could eliminate that door and add potentially a door from the rock. >> you already have one. you already have a door right next to the real garage so the tenant comes out, goes into the tunnel and immediately makes a right to go back into the garage. that's over there. >> your correct . sorry. >> i would agree with your assessment. commissioner diamond.

>> i just wanted to say i appreciated the fact that they designed a much larger adu that we normally see in the situation by a verynice unit . somebody can rent. i also want to share the observations of commissioner tanner and fung that this kind of project doesn't seem like it wants going through the conditional use

. >> in terms of the cua. >> we don't have any current applications on file dealing with this interim control and usually the interim control expires after 18 months. >> they will expire next 18 months. then my thing about this is that i do want to respect and uphold theinterim control being passed by supervisor peskin . the thing about this project is that we are in a way not maximizing the kinds of units in the proposed project and i think that is the intentof the policy or the legislation itself . in a way, i would like to see either a bigger adu or one more

unit in this project in respect of the interim control that we have. but at the same time, this is the project, the proposed project that we have. my other question in terms of because of the increase of the square footage ofthe existing units , in a way it's about 300+ square foot increase of existing units. but the access to the open space of the roof deck remains by the existing units and the unit itself has only 50 blocks. square foot in front of the open space and i think we've been talking about equitable supplies and in a way equitable access to the amenities of the proposed projects so this is where i'm kind of like struggling in terms of this project .

but i do respect the proposed project on this but in terms of our policies and what we've been discussing in theplanning commission i feel like that's something we need to be consistent on . >> i definitely hear you on wanting to respect interim control. part of the challenge is its to maximize the true density of what's allowed itwould be a very different project, very different cost , just a completely different scale than what i think this particular owner is pursuing. as part of the balance we're struggling with is how to maximize density when maximizing can be really run up against other challenges like maybe to get rid of the fagade or change the building significantly and that hits other parts of our code .>> just to follow up on commissioner moore's comment i think staff has prepared a

condition of approval that would basically refinethe interior layout and then make sure that there'sseparation between the two . that would better meet our adu controls commissioner moore's comments are correct . the tunnel does meet code and is consistent with the kind of entry requirements that we have to followthrough. so if the commission will decline we have some . >> just on the overall legislation when the supervisor proposed this we had discussed with his staff and to be since had discussions about that perhaps making these permanent but one issue that, when they were originally proposed is in making them permanent, how does that apply to new construction which would be very different than how it applies to expansion of existing. i thinkwe're running into that here where this is a fairly modest expansion of a single-family home . they are adding a adu butthe

maximum density would be three units . in order to get that you're basically cutting up or doing something very different. would it be easier if this were new construction but because perhaps its historic it gets to be a different su. that's one thing we want to talk to him about if these do become interim controls is perhaps treating new construction differently than an expansion of anexisting in this case single-family home or you could have a adu so it's good, it's getting somewhat of the intent of it but not much . >> i think the other part of it for thelegislation is thinking about how we're defining what is out of, is it entire buildings ? you have tothousand square foot, have a garage , all you're talking about is a small unit and we're back to where we are building housing for couples or singles that isn't geared towards families with

children or international households. so i think it's definitely the intent. none of us here on the commission enjoy the approval with the elevators andall that . that's not what i want to be on the planning commission . at the same time this is clearly not that and it's a far cry.they prevent certainly the mcmansions of the world but they alsoprevent inks like this . i don't think that would bethe supervisor's goal in that . so commission, didyou have your hand up again ? >> we've heard modifications, doyou want to read that into therecord ? >> commissioner tanner . maybe we put our names up afte . >> summary, commissioner fung. >> i will bethere in person next week . i think staff should also bring forth because you provide or excuse me, not provide. if you require so much process,

it acts as the counter protection for productivity where people wanting to add to their homes and therefore the number of units. in any event, since it did come before us i'll hold my further comments on that but i wouldn't move to grant conditional use. >> second. >> motion and the second, we d have vice president more . >> i've wanted to add to director hill's comment, i think it's interesting to look at new construction of older buildings and alterations. it would be a percentile of how much that would be so this project may fall into that because it isn't that much.

the one other thing though to which i'm working with is the fact that the condition of this building is still designed to connect these two units and a matter that has to be really rethought in order to be credible. that is the condition that the commissioner has not even mentioned.anybody want to take the second on that? >> depending on hearing them i would wonder if they would be amenable to addingthose after the hearing . >> asked either miss gunter or john to come up.>> staff recommends a condition that the internal connection connects the two units directly, not the door leading from the garage but the door that connects the living spaces the comes a solid wall and removes that internal connection. themission will consider that . >> thank you, so i don't know

if you're open to adding the conditions of the project commissioner diamond or chair koppel. >> i'd like to hear from commissioner fung first. >> indeed. >> it's the existing door that bothersme . >> very good commissioners. if there is a motion that's been seconded we can call questions. on that motion to approve with conditions that does not include the motion read into the record bystaff, commissioner diamond . [roll call vote] that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners imperial and more

voting against. that concludes your short agenda today.i guarantee you next thursday will not be shor . >> thank you everyone, this meeting is adjourned . >>

my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility.

i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our

jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that. i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral

establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a

cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the result. once in a while you heard it had an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it

turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8 years. i handled homicides and suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative

components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i may know a loved one coming from the back way or a loved one seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the medical examiners office. what do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the enough and -- with the administrative and the families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten

married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband who grumbled and went back to sleep. this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be.

>> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't hollywood, we are real world. yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job. if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for the city of san francisco.

well, happy women's history month to you all. i'm kimberly ellis. i'm the director for the san francisco department on the status of women. and i have the incredible honor of not just working for a department that's dedicated to women, girls, and nonbinary, but a city and county that's committed to uplifting women, girls, and nonbinary. but the best mayor in the country who is committed to supporting women, girls, and nonbinary. not