Hello, im an social architect at architect nation, inc, and second slide, please. And im a resident for the past ten years and while in sorry, can you hear me now. We can, but weve already allowed the project sponsor to go forward so youll have to wait until his presentation is done. Understood. Next slide. Were on the chronology of ep engagement slide. We held a preapplication meeting wit neighbors to discussion the proposed project and the dr requester, brian fabian attended and provided a letter outlining his primary concerns and we emailed him copies of the drawings and offered to sketch a photograph from his yard and on april 17th, we received three photos from mr. Fabian and following on the 25th, mr. Fabian, we sent mr. Fabian a handdrawn sketch for the location of the proposed addition and on december 16th, 2020 excuse me, on may 6th, 2019, mr. Fabian responded. We provided all letters to the Planning Department for review and on may 20th, 2020, we confirmed with David Winslow were that the openers are interested and we confirmed that we would be interested in setting up a reconciliation meeting. We feel the windows are not overly large or expansive and that would be the masterlevel window size and we also added a vertical architectural fin spoto the proposed windows and that was in the 31 311 drawings, as well. In response to noise concerns, the owners determined to work with the schedules to determine ideal time. And the owners intend to inform the builder of any noiserelated complaints that may arise due to unscheduled noisy work or work that occurs outside of the predetermined hours. And slide six, please, and this is a site plan and the building is set back 15 feet to preserve the preservation requirements from the front of the building and the rear is really the only place to locate a thirdfloor addition and the dr requester also claims that there was a 30inch high rear deck built and this type of improvement does not need an improvement. Slide 7 is an aerial view of the property. Project sponsor, that is your time, but you will be afforded a twominute rebuttal. Ok, thats fine. Yeah, so dr requester, we muted you because we could hear your television in the background creating an echo. So hit star 6 to unmute yourself. I think im unmuted. Can you hear me now. We can. You have five minutes. Sorry about the technical difficulties earlier. I want to thank the commission for giving me this time to speak. My wife and i have homeowners who live directly next door and we filed this because we did what we could to communicate our concerns but they have not been willing to work with us that the third story would have on us and the quality of life. We dont like being in a situation. However, theyve never made an attempt to talk with us how that would affect us. There was a concern about how this would impact us and talk to us, we might not be here today. Our primary concern is the projects lack of neighborhood scale and common character and the resulting negative impact it will have on our privacy and quality of life. And the addition is poorly scaled largely because there is to dualpitched roof or rear setback to the addition and the addition would create a large passing of structure that is out of scale with our block and our neighborhood is one of singlefamily homes and this would feel like a high density condo. The threestory homes all have a common feature, dualpitched roofs and setbacks in the rear and this feature allows for the additional Square Footage and fits the neighborhood. This towers us and impacts our privacy out on our deck in the yard. The stated purpose for 101 is to provide adequate light air and privacy and this will create a special situation where we as a next door neighbor will suffer a significant loss of privacy. And theres to rear setback that could provide a transition from the private space of 64mulcher street to ours. This will create a large flat facade with large windows that look directly into our deck and Outdoor Living space and it will cause us to feel boxed in as it will rise more than eight feet from the fence line. This is a great example of how a threestory house can lessen the privacy impacts on the immediate neighbors and this neighbor has a dual pitched roof and smaller windows and fits with our neighborhood and does not impact our privacy. Next slide, please. Were concerned about the loss of privacy from increased Noise Pollution from a thirdstory addition and lots are so tight, we share walls causing new Construction Remodeling take place and our privacy and quality of life is negatively affect on the other hand a daily basis because we constantly hear neighbors, whether it, their nanny singing to their kids, dogses running up and down the hallway or running appliances in the kitchen. Were concerned about the noise from the kitchen. Our home will feel like a Construction Zone for a year. Next slide, please. The proposed addition is another in a long series of renovations by our neighbors that will impact our privacy and quality of life. Just this past month, they have constructed a large raised deck in a backyard that is employing an unlicensed contractor. It is so high it gives clear sight lines. If this is approved, they will have a large thirdstory addition over the back deck and yard, as well. This unlicensed construction is currently under review by the department. Building inspection for possible code violations. If you could advance to the last slide, that would be great. And finally, were concerned about such a large construction project because of our small lots and tight proximity especially during the covid pandemic and my wife has worked from home for the past six years and ive been working from home since march. The previous Kitchen Remodel made it difficult for her to work and that was a minor represenrenovation. This would literally turn our home into a construction site and during the small Kitchen Remodel, our house would literally shake during cop instruction anconstruction. I work at ucsf and this will be a long time before im allowed back in my office because of covid and this construction would make it impossible to do my job. To help mitigate these effects, we have suggested a dual pitched roof, smaller windows in the back and soundproofing of new insulation and a shared southfacing walls and additionally, we want thats your time. Escrow account be established for alternate workspace for this construction period. Thank you for your time. I believe you cap hear me wheyou can hear me. You will be e rebuttal. We should go to Public Comment and through the chair, members of the public will be afforded one minute. Operator your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Members of public, this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number, press 10 to get spot queue. Operator you have one question remaining. Question hello. My name is guy barbaro and i live kiddiecorner. I want to be clear that i did submit a letter in opposition and so its not zero, i can provide send in an email showing i did email. The 4 9 meeting, i did not receive it and when i brought it up, they said we put it in everyones box and i did not hear until afterwards. Complaint 20204711, they keep saying its 30inches above the ground and theres a misunderstanding its 30inches above the grade and the inspector said its five feet above the grade and thats why they can see the neighbors yard and house. He doesnt plan to issue a violation notice and my concern is that this should not be approved because that height requires a variance and thats your time. It takes up one third of their backyard. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Dr requester, you have a twominute rebuttal. Yes, first of all, i was personally aware of three letters of opposition that were submitted and so, im a little curious as to why theyre not recorded into the Public Record here. And in regards to the architects, we never received any notice that the neighbors intended or wanted to have a meeting of reconciliation with us and that is news to us. I do not know why we were not contacted and told that michael and winny wante winnie wanted a reconciliation meeting. We tried to engage and i went to the preapplication meeting and we explained our concerns. And we exchanged a few emails and they sent a handdrawn sketch showing what this proposed addition would look like and the communication just stopped and so i dont understand what theyre talking about as far as, you know, they tried to reach out. And additionally, that offer to provide insulation of the walls, soundproofing is a major issue and problem with us and we request that actual effective soundproofing measures be undertaken in this project and not just simple insulation we put in the walls because we tried that on our own home and its not effective. You have 30 seconds. Thats all for my rebuttal. Great. Project sponsor, you have a twominute rebuttal. Yes, hello. If you have a chance to bring up slide ten of the project slides, we think the project definitely fits with the neighborhood, on the street, which consists of two and threestory buildings, and it fits with the scale for 514 square foot addition and we think that it fits the mixed pattern on the block. And we dont feel like a setback, a major setback is a reasonable request. It would be very hard to fit any more space if we had a setback at the front and a setback at the back and it would make the addition sort of a mute point. And the scale of the roof is set back from the Property Line or the sloped or pitched roof that we have in the project and that does not it has a setback from the side of the Property Line where those upper Clear Windows are. And the deck that was spoken about in the rear yard is on top of an existing slope rear yard. It is sloped and it is located 30inches above the grade and weve been working directly with building inspectors to verify that were in compliance with that. And we dont believe the windows are overly sized. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, that concludes the Public Comment portion of this hearing and the matter is before you. Im supportive of the staff recommendation. I pushed a button and i am also supportive of the staffs recommendation and i think it would help the commission, as well as the audience to hear that it is being referred to as being illegal is, indeed, built to standards which do not require a variance at 30inches. I think the limit is three feet, if im correct or even 40inches and mr. Winslow would comment on that. It would help to set the record straight and i find the extension and the design of the proposed addition im supportive of it and just would like a clarification for the Public Record. Yes, david winslo, staff architect and the deck is not a part of this application and it sounds like it was something that was previously built and has a notice of not necessarily a notice of violation but a complaint registered against it. The code allows decks to be built up to 30inches above grade within the required rear yard and they do not require a variance and that is the surface of the deck, obviously, guardrails and handrails can exceed that. For having that just by having that explanation, i would like to not have the commission be impaired in the judgment that theres something that is potentially illegal that requires us to wage again and i would make a motion that it is approved as is. I dont need to comment. Its ok. Excellent. Commissiocommissioners, a secons been seconded. Pai pair role call . This passes unanimously 70 and places us on our final dr of the evening, item 2019 at 1856 29th avenue and i will remind members of the public that there was an item that fell off of consent that we will hear after this. Mr. Winslow, i believe youre on mute. Good evening, again, president and members of the commission, David Winslow, staff architect and the item before you is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of Building Permit application 2019. 517. 1 2019. 517. 1. 1003 set back from the front building wall and to confront front and rear decks over singlefamily house and it adds a dwelling unit with a fillin of an existing room on posts. Work associated with the adu is to be filed under separate permit and all scopes of work related to the adu qualify for minimum staiministerial review d therefore, the decision correctionary review may only be filed for the work not related to the adu. The adjacent neighbors to the south of the proposed project are concerned that the proposed project will impact light and the Structural Integrity of their foundation and to date, the department has received 11 letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. The departments Residential Design Advisory Team has reviewed this and found this is appropriately set back and partially obscured by the repair at the front and extends no further than the main rear building wall to maintain appropriate scale at the street and the rear and the existing deck over the existing twostory rear popout is set back five feet and modestly sized and serves its set back from the line building walls. However, residential Design Guidelines to feel that light wells be matched and there is no matching light well at the third well of the neighbor to the south. And therefore, sort o staff recs a three foot by three foot. And therefore, staff recommends taking dr and approving with this modification to incorporate that and that concludes my presentation and im available to answer questions. Thank you. Mr. Winslow, does that conclude staff presentation . Yes, it does. Did you not hear me in. No, i did hear you. I wasnt paying attention. I apologize. Thats ok. Dr requester, sorr are you prepared to make your presentation . You may need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. Project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . Im ready to present, if you can hear me. I can, go ahead and present. You have five minutes. So i would like to address the dr requesters issues here. Our project here, were adding a modest addition to a home and badly needed addition for a growing family and we have addressed in previous weve worked with the Planning Department and addressed previous comments that the Planning Department had regarding light wells and this was related to the light well in the north side of the property and it was never requested of us that we to match the adjacent light well at the south side of the property. However, we are willing to figure out how we can reconfigure the plan to do this, if needed, but it must be added that the light well in the requesters property does not serve any bedrooms or any rooms that require light for the code and, also, the fact that our building is to the north of the requesters property and never cast any shadows on that property. And with regard to the requesters comments about the nature of the work and the impact of the infrastructure and the quality of light, weve tried our best to respond to his concerns and as the email core correspondence between him and my client, the owner of the property and seems to be at an improve pasimpasse and were wio start at 9 00 and finish at 5 and theres any noisemaking machinery and we do see this wouldnt be a very long period of time during the construction of the project since the Foundation Work can happen pretty quickly. And the project here is a very modest project and meets with the planning code requirements and weve worked hard with the Planning Department tailor it and meet the requirements and its a badly needed project for my client who needs to have more space for his family and his parents and to help with his growing family and it is something that we request that the dr not be taken on and it would set a bad precedence, particularly the fact that the requesters concerns are due to noise and construction and we have to make sure this doesnt happen to the clients property and he intends to live here during this work and hell phase this project in two phases starting with the downstairs work is proceeding with the upstairs work so the family can stay in the property while this is going on and so its in his best interests to ensure the safety of the property during construction on both properties, for that matter. And finally, just for the request that the Planning Commission and deny the requesters dr. Very good, dr requester, are you question us . Question, this is kevin moore and jose pardell. You have five minutes. Dr requester, did we lose you again . Can you hear us . I hear you. Your time is running. Thermr. Pardell, you do first fr two minutes. We live next door at 1860 29th avenue and have lived here 22 years as the homeowner and we oppose this oversized structure and its inappropriate because our homes are not fully detached and the proposed structure is incompatible with the neighbors home scale and character. We delivered fliers to the neighbors and we are grateful for the 29th avenue ortega street and the neighbors who sent in comments. There were 11 letters in opposition. And the proposed thirdfloor addition may affect our midday to Late Afternoon sun exposure and we are concerned of lots of Natural Light in the stairwell that will result in the structure next door is approved. The proposed structure does not take into consideration the need for additional parking resulting from an increase from two bedrooms to six bedrooms. There are several Senior Citizens living in homes across the street from us who are advanced age. They deserve to live their lives in peace and quiet and please do not burden them with excessive construction noise and disruption for an indeterminant length of time. My son and i work during this covid situation and my wife babysits our granddaughters and this disruption for a period of two years is too burdensome. We ask that the permit be not approved. Thank you. I represent the pardells, this is a modest construction project is completely untrue. This converts this into two units, and one fourbedroom, three bath unit and even though its not before the commission, we believe that this violates section 207c4c2 because the only way to accommodate this is to increase the height of the building which would be violatee that provision and we also believe that there are a number of Building Code problems with regard to the proposed construction. First, if you look on page 32 of your packet, sheet 8. 12 shows a light well on the left side of the building which terminates on top of the second floor bathroom and that condition, obviously, requires a roof above the secondfloor bathroom and the design is silent as to how that roof would drain without water running into the neighboring property in building cold section 110. 121 and the Planning Departments proposed light well will create a similar problem with the same Building Code section because theyll have to be an added roof with regard to the staircase to accommodate the light well and that proposed light well also will affect the pit on the third floor and the sky lights because it actually eliminates part of the parapit and so these those sky lights will no longer conform to the code with regard to fire safety issues and so, those sky lots will either need to be moved or be fire rated assemblies and if they are fire rated assemblies, then the parapit should be removed because that may reduce some of the shading from the roof, as well. And finally, the proposed roof plan on sheet a1. 3, page 33 of your packet also shows significant problems with the proposed roof and front roof deck in that they create two bathtub situations where water will be trapped. And the water will have to migrate on to the Neighboring Properties in violation again of Building Code section 1101. 2. 1. And we also believe that the proposed roof deck on the back of the yard is an intrusion upon both of the neighbors properties and finally, just with regard to the look and feel of the neighborhood, this is the only third this will be the only threestory building in the immediate vicinity of these homes and it will create a significant different look for the remainder of the neighborhood. Thank you, that is your time. You will have a twominute rebuttal at the end. Commissioners, we should take Public Comment at this time. Operator to summon each question, press 10. This is your opportunity to submit your public testimony by calling the 800 number, pressing 10 to enter the queue and through the chair, each member will be afforded one minute. No calls. Excellent. Dr requester, you have a two manufacture minute rebuttal. Thank you. At a minimum, we believe that the commission needs to require the owner of the property to address the following issues before any permit is approved for this project and first, they need to confirm how the area calculatings for the first floor adu are calculated because it appears the condition space calculation of 500 square feet is off. And second, they need to confirm how the thirdfloor addition construction will be designed to address potential impact to move drainage on to additional property and third, they need to design the third elevation wont go adjacent to neighboring project walls and four, they need to confirm whether or not any supplemental Foundation Work need to be performed to support the third floor addition and to address possible impacts on the two neighbors properties because theres literally to space between the properties and the design is silent with regard to any structural consideration, let alone any Water Management consideration and finally confirm how the roof located in the light wells will be drained to ensure proper market of stormwater away from the neighbors properties. Stated simply right now, this project needs to have further review from the commission so that if it does go forward, it addresses the neighbors concerns. Is that the end of your rebuttal . Yes, it is. I thought that was my time. I apologize. Youve got 20 seconds left, 15. The only other thing that we would ask is that you also consider the parking concerns that mr. Pardell discussed. We dont believe that the planned expansion and the adu addresses the concerns. I would like to respond to the requesters. Were happy to provide all of that information. We regards to the drainage and details, it is our full intention to provide all of the the details. This level of information is not provided until the addendum phase but im happy to work with planning staff and provide that information and this is something that is obviously a necessity to build this property and we fully intend to do this. And so im happy to provide those details. With regard to the foundation, this is something weve discussed and we have a plan that will be done in sections and it will be the excavation is not a lot and essentially replacing the slab and we are aware of the foundation and we know how these were built and our experience as Structural Engineers here, were specialists in these types of situations and so, we have a plan in place for dealing with that and ensuring that theres no movement in the foundation when that happens. And with regard to the light wells, these will all be draining away from the property and any drains in these light well roofs are equipped with an area drain and a backup and overflow and thats a standard detail for any construction. And i think thats it. You have 30 seconds. Yeah, again, its just regarding the parking and this is a singlefamily home with an adu that will be used by the family and it will be for his extended family and adus are not required to provide offstreet parking and there is one parking remaining in the garage and an extra spot available in the driveway and i think thats it. Fantastic. Commissioners, that concludes the Public Comment portion of this item and it is now before you. Commissioner mar. I would be interested in asking the applicant of how you think you would be able to accommodate the light well the department is asking for since the building has existing stairs, it looks like as if it would be required to rearrange the entire interior circulation to accommodate that. Can you respond to that . This is a very valid concern and you rightly pointed out that it will actually impact the la layout quite substantially. And the way the stairs comes down, we might propose currently, theres no lightwell on our building at the existing roof. The way the stairs comes down, it may only be required to extend a little bit above the roof and i would have to check the section and confirm that. If we could keep it to a limited height, maybe thats something that might be acceptable. If it doesnt fit, and we would have to reconfigure the entries there and figure out how that works. That would make the building, obviously, significantly more expensive. Ive been wondering, since the existing building does not have a late well and has existed that way since it was built, the question i wanted to actually ask mr. Winslow is the following, if you go to the roof plan if you would move the skylights further to the fort nh so you would not need the power pad for fire separation, would that not enable you to create a better light into the adjoining light well because the parapit creates an additional shadow . For the commissioners, the sky lights, are there four of them and three that sit on the Property Line and pa because thy sit on the Property Line, theres a parabed that creates additional shadow of the light well to the house . By moving them to the left, that would be the north, more Natural Light would automatically, without creating a light well, create additional access to light into the adjoining light well of the adjoining property. Mr. Winslo, could you respond to that, please . Very good point and i think that is one way of accomplishing it. I think, also, as the project sponsor was eluding to, there might be a way of lowering the roof height in the landing area since the landing is at a lower eelevation than the third floor and if that could be accomplished to at least provide a little bit more relief, then simply the third story wall going up full height, plus the 30inch parapit parapit to prote sky lights of the Property Line, i think that would go a long way towards meeting that guideline. I think we do need to accommodate something that should not be requiring to relocate stairs which is more costly and also quite a detrimental effect to the way the building is laid out. Understood. The other thing that might help justify this is that what were talking about is north of the light well in question, and so, its not really subject to light well were trying to respond to is not subject to as much direct sunlight as if it were another orientation. It is an indirect shadow of a parapit making it look more massive and for impacting and thats why im suggesting to move the skylights. Im personally comfortable with what is proposed here, that is an amenable move for the applicant, i would suggest that the commission take dr and instead of asking for the creation of a light well, ask for the skylights to be moved up the Property Line by five feet together with potentially lowering the roof over the stair to create as much light into the adjoining light well. Is that a motion . That is a motion, yes. And mr. Winslow makes sure my facing of the motion reflects what needs to be done . Something we Say Something and sometimes its not properly captured. Can you help me properly put that into a motion. I would say lower the ceiling height above the landing and the stair and move the skylights to not require parapit in order to match the neighboring light well as much as possible. Second. And was that an accurate reflection of your intended motion, commissioner moore . Yes, it is, thank you. Very good, then, commissioners and if there is nothing further, theres a motion that has been seconded to take dr and to approve the project with the conditions read into the record by commissioner moore and reiterated by mr. Winslow. Pai role call . So moved and that passes unanimously 70. If anyone is interested after a close battle, the giants are losing 61 and near in the eighth inning and it was a tight race for many innings. Item 6 was pulled off of consent for case 2019021795 on 650 frederick street. Is staff prepared to present . Yes. Good evening, commissioner, im with the Department Staff and the item before you is request for conditional use, authorization to install a new Verizon WirelessTelecommunications Facility at 650 fringed stree650 frederick. It includes 15 antennas, 18 remote units on an exist stadium light pole, including ground mon continue equipmenmountain equip. This will operate in a 4g and 5g capacity and noted on may 28t may 28th, 2020, at t received conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission for similar project at the north side of the stadium. According to the project sponsor team. These facilities of the two projects will be approximately 450 feet apart. The project sponsor held a preapplication meeting at the San Francisco county fair building at 1199 ninth avenue on thursday, july 11th, 2019 at 6 00 p. M. And according to the application materials, Ten Community members attended this meeting and two attendees verbally opposed the project and several were interested in discussing the Health Impacts of the proposed facility and how the technology operates and renewing projects specific details including stine, equipment and coverage. Project sponsor, are you prepared to present . Im from Verizon Wireless. You have five minutes. A request and verizon is seeking to improve the Network Footprint in and around golden gate park, fortunes o portions e valley. Some general wireless statistics, this graphic illustrates the consumers appetite for Wireless Services today, the main Drivers Behind the numbers are threefold and the first one is cord cutting. And the date, demand and usage produced from web, email, text messaging, apps and then finally, the significant increase in the number of connected devices in our homes and the wearable and other mobile technology we carry with us on a daily basis. Simply verizon is in the business of providing reliable, seamless and wireless coverage for all of customers. Our customers demap this demande they live, play, work and also en route to and from the various destinations. Matthew, if you could put up the second slide, please. Its imperative verizon not only verizon but all wireless carcarriers provide this type of ubiquitous coverage. The slide illustrates why that is so important. Slide three, the slide illustrates verizons current illustrates verizons current verizon current coverage footprint. As identified in the slide you willll see several black pointis and they are also labeled with a site id. These are the sites on air and transmitting a signal. The colors depicts the type of signal. Re green in building cover age yellow and vehicle coverage and red on street coverage. There are two primary objectives the installation hopes to achieve. First increase network capacity. Currently we have two sites identified on the slide. The site at the north we refer to as clayton. The south site is u. C. S. F. On the hospital. Both of these sites currently experience heavy congestion as they primarily handle the bulk of the Verizon Wireless data traffic. The results of the congestion are exemplified by displacing calls, dropped calls and slow and sometimes nonexistence data through put. Second objective seeks to bridge the existing gaps in coverage. To provide a seamless connection in coverage between the facilities, verizon must install this facility. If you look at slide four and the gaps in coverage in the yellow and red are now filled in with green. That means it has coverage in the building. I would like to direct your attentioattention to slide 5. The general layout. 220 square foot area behind the bleachers on the south side of the stadium. The light standard just to the left of that on the east. Slide 6 is elevation depicting the antenna for 4g, 5g and various. Y thank you, sir, for that presentation. We appreciate your time. We should go to Public Comment. Members of the public this is your opportunity to call the 800 number and enter the queue. We have the most patient person whoe started this hearing with a concern pulling this matter off consent and stuck with s us. For that you will be afforded three minutes. The line hung up. No n she has been with us for so long. We will keep the line open for her in case she comes back. I am sorry, commissioners we did have one caller up until the last moment. Lets afford her that opportunity while you continue to deliberate. Thee matter is before you, commissioners. I p am supportive of the projec. Commissioner moore. As far as i can tell, the project follows the review and recommendations of the department provided. I am in support of the project. Commissioner imperial. While we are waiting, if the caller will come back, maybe the planner can inform us as to the concerns during the preapplication meeting that the community put out for opposition. I want to clarify if you are seeking that information from staff, we did review the information provided by the sponsor. Perhaps they might be the proper contact to elaborate onon that. Generally, all of the we haveion that received people were mostly concerned about potential Adverse Health related to radio frequency design and, ofha cour, the impacts to the public being it is within golden gate park. Those were the main concerns. Possibly the sponsor might have more information what they received att the actual outreach meeting. Project sponsor report. This is Stacy Bradley from rec and park. I will see if i can get our representative on. Can you hear me . Yes. Jack christy with Verizon Wireless in regard to the preapplication meeting. The folks that held that meeting indicated there were several people and the complaints or the concerns were primarily healthbased impacts. I echo what matthew said. Thank you. Commissioners my Operations Team has no callers on the line, unfortunately. I personally feel for this woman who stayed with us the whole time until the last minute. In this case i sympathize again also with the woman that waited for a long time and did not get to hear. I would like to hear the other issues raised. I didnt see any other issues extraordinary unless the caller calls back and has something to bring out. I move the motion to approve. Second. Seeing no further deliberation, there is a motion and seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 70. I commend you on your patience and perseverance. I appreciate your staying with us with the technical difficulties in the hearing. Thank you. We are done. Good night. Good afternoon welcome to the land use and Transportation CommitteeSan Francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 20th. Im the chair of the Committee Supervisor aaron peskin joined by supervisor ahsha safai and dean preston and