Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission 51216  SFGTV  May 16, 2016 9:00am-10:01am PDT

9:00 am
the people that working hard for this commercial if you ask this is really something that - thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners i'm i have a house an mccormick been in the neighborhoods since 1989 with the roof decks there are not many our block has no such roof deck one was added to a building on the other side of the block a problem for the neighbors the project design should have visible mitigation especially to the entering block accustomed to this the current plan shows fronting bedrooms of the units those decks are poor design and run krntd to pacific
9:01 am
avenue controls that is a intend to preserve the liveable of the patterns the neighborhood special circumstances of other neighborhoods blocks in the building an larkin and mccormick sit tight with a orient with the mid block open space. >> thank you. >> my name is kenny live on mccormick street it recent explained to us by a planner who worked for thirty years non-structural rooms in buildings have a limit useful life and will be torn down over time to mac make way for the structures that follows the rules of zoning district in this situation those are railways dated from 1960 things get old
9:02 am
and torn down and other buildings were constructed question live in a time the exorbitant heirs rules and it is possible and economically feasible to connect a large new edition so 0 century old building this is a property owner with a non-complying structure or building phlebnew rules thank you. >> we represent between indicate and broadway the proposed project on pavlgz pacific avenue is within you are boundaries and can't support it we appreciate the project sponsor investment into the neighborhood by creating more housing units and non-commercial space, however, the project
9:03 am
sponsor should maintain a 4 percent setback requirement under the planning code this will bring that building auto the non-coming from use classification we see two setbacks demolish the front building and build with the low rate parking or to from the building is not wanting to demolish remove the private terraces for the two location in summary is he urge the project sponsor to follow our recommended changes prior to granting approval it is a fair outcome for all party involved thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> in support of dr. >> seeing none, project sponsor 3 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners project sponsor architect we came to it project a little
9:04 am
bit late and get caught we reviewed and in good detail the hearing with our comments in mind i'll briefly go over the revisions we made to address the commissioners questions or comments at that time first of all, we organizing the facade of building we organized the commercial and lobby tonight together for more transparency and lifts did height of the for ground for more since of a presence on the street and we organized it so the driveway was over to the west side of the site and therefore allowing the commercial area for more presence on the street the preliminary initial in this project has been the massing and i think clearly we've done a lot to setback in the rear yard and many places up to 4 to 10
9:05 am
feet and eliminated the private penthouse stairs and setback all the terraces and at the top floor we setback on both larkin and on the east side 4 feet predominantly the area of the building more light and air and we reduces the height of the parapet in the back with the existing building in the back down an average which of 7 feet and thus giving more light and air to the this we moved the two units in the rear that you saw before that i think brought to ifshz attention we moved to this area with their own private terraces it steps down in a gracious manner so the three percent rear yard is now reduced down to only 3 feet above the
9:06 am
garage floor and one of the issues has been interesting where is the grade around this building why are we not fully quarry the reason a lot of the buildings are non-compliment neighbors only one building that is adjacent with a colonel applying rear yard they've been scooped out and the paramount is at the top of that on ma exotic we're going two feet below grade i talk a little bit about the speak up we provided 24 open space is 25 percent code compliant and we brought this building to a code compliant working closely with staff an this and to that extents our open space in this building clustering the top terrace 5 times the required minimum.
9:07 am
>> thank you. >> speakers in support of project sponsor. >> seeing none, dr requester no. there's no rebuttal okay. before we deliberate i have a couple of questions i think that people are given a thought, sir can you come up i have a question about where you're going with your - >> pictures. >> not the pictures you mentioned precedent excuse me - finish our thought to help us that would be great. >> yes. thank you. i appreciate my last name is g a n d i no problem. >> what i was finishing on was
9:08 am
that we if you could magnify on this specific part where i have it bent we know the zoning administrator ca considers this type of a variance as as tasted because of the condition and self-approvals as shown in the condition one essentially this condition as a because you have to keep the noncompliant structure future instructions in the building area requires a new variance the zoning administrator may say he put that condition on a lot of evaporates that two is the point with you get something in the rear you may not be able to build in the front i'm requesting based on that, please don't allow to the sponsor to have that both ways we were their double dipping as opposed to following what other followed and thank you very much i appreciate this portion the
9:09 am
commission is closed commissioner antonini. >> there were changes years ago one of the changes that was put into place this 45 percent rear yard and the other change was to allow you know the height on the front end to be i believe it was 40 feet and, you know, this is what the project sponsor was asking for they're not getting things additional in the front there is a parapet 40 feet height this is conforming and the other part the rear yard is now at grade or low below grade it is 3 feet so lower than the grade before and it is 25 percent and we've been told that we can do armenian in the averaging allows this to be 25 with little rear yard that's the only thing we're giving to the sponsor 9 rest is all conforming as far as i, see
9:10 am
there is almost everything we'll we've asked for they've given we asked them to make the rear yard into a rear yard they move forward the structure in connection with the building itself and asked for more space on both sides and added a 5 square foot sixth district and 7 feet on the first thirty feet of the structure that are on larkin street will and both structures have they're light comes from the pacific and 7 feet is not a bad separation a lot of the single-family homes with 6 feet between them and get more jerps as. >> get further back things with these cut back to the minimum on the structures on the roof an elevator in the two
9:11 am
penthouses is the minimum they've improved the commercial space and improved the design they've providing us with the units ever very nice housing with the 5, three bedrooms and two, two's and average of plus square footage so some a little bit larger and smaller i've been out to this site and work with the dr requester and project sponsor so i'm very happy i like the new all of the evidence i think this does the things we've asked them to do i'm in favor of the project. >> commissioner moore. >> this project leaves me with a number of questions he acknowledging the new architect does some the elements of the site i believe there are still a number of issues that have of great concern to me for one i am
9:12 am
uncertain why this is to reuse with the construction no calculations old foundation and new foundation i'm not sure what i see but i do not see this project has answers all questions this commission raised the most important to design relative to the approximate proximity of the buildings that u button this property that's not successful on for example, for the issues of privacy the 8. 2 i believe that all this side west side west side and east side the terraces that look crossing the rear side of larkin
9:13 am
street basically, not meeting the requirements for the privacy we talk about in all and ever other project that aside it basically would require that that building starts to express and becomes a smaller building on the east and the west side we have private terraces from bedrooms to the west, we have roof deck occupying the terraces in l-shaped kind of create very large private open spaces learn some of the units we're approving this commission i believe this project overall is too logger largo of what we're proposed to to do ♪ area i have concerns with how we define grade i don't believe that aside street four to five percent to which this building is at paut a deck on open space
9:14 am
is correct interpretation sense you have indeed ungraded planted in the soil of open spaces to the south and east side of the project i believe that there is a definition of what constitutes at least my impression a larger green space which leaves the neighborhoods in its small sensitivity from the o profess building that it was and clearly amnesty the building to participate in the context so it is the makings, the enar tuition of privacy and not respectfully the prosper opens the east side and west side and including this open space i'll suggest that the overall number of private terraces and rooftop gardens of the private subdivision of this
9:15 am
open space is not in the state of how we have few or no roof decks in this area he would basically see this needs to be rejauftsd so to the that moment with those observations i can't support the project and don't think that this is stuff disclosure on a number of issues >> thank you. i guess the question for corey teague several speakers bought up the double dpw you can't have to both ways gives the definition of the rules in terms of non-conforming structure and the surveillance. >> so corey teague assistant zoning administrator i think one speaker pretty put it pretty well the code is set up to say you have allowed to retain the
9:16 am
structures and ultimately if you can bring them into conformity that's great or leave as is in this case it if you have a building not with a rear yard and want to maximize the envelope there is nothing in the code that says a rear yard surveillance or modifications can't be granted but not continuing a process the concern because of vacant property they'll only been building an envelope with the situation essentially building a envelope and retain a certain amount of yard. >> i guess the question for the gentleman we have to many an enormous i wish you were more familiar i didn't see that a few weeks the
9:17 am
above grade and below grade where the deck is that built on top of how does that work i only liken it to my dwrard sleeps if i want to put a fence up it goes with the lot it is a 10 foot lot to make it even this is a platform with different grades around that who is at base for that. >> we use the floor the existing floor concrete floor the garage building as our fwrad, if you will, and this deck right now by code in the rear yards can be raised 3 feet above grade and this is a very code complying the zoning administrator was decree and what happens around the site is this site right here on mccormick the grade is at
9:18 am
natural grade my understanding and it's points scooped out and the mccormick sites are always sleeping up those properties along here had natural grades reduced to the basement level they are below what we call our grade back here this is been clearly this itself - >> i'm sorry. >> in the sense this is a manipulative higher grade those properties have over time scooped the basements out so thankful made their basements into living spaces that's fine but only one of those buildings this wyoming's one as their own code compliant the other 11 properties don't dr. complying arranged in terms of the depth the larkin street this specific
9:19 am
does slope down gentle towards the west that's why the natural grades between the larkin street is lower since they've between scooped out we don't know a natural grade we have a replenish admonish of grades around the building. >> flaektd that concrete floor is what anything. >> underneath is presumably indisturbed soil. >> so just the concrete floor it you blow it up it is a creating concrete grade and i think so it has been there almost one hundred years. >> scompln. >> yeah. i was bimentd by the architect while there isn't a provision asking for the 45 percent rear yard no one else has a rear yard dwp equip one
9:20 am
rear yard up think this project is done a lot of things i certainly would be receptive to any modifications i assume the organizations from are co-sponsor is the top part of the building ramp the decks further back because i was on the decks of some of the houses in mccormick i don't see why those decks are for interview the privacy so i'll be willing to hear that but don't see anything wrong with the project and as we we're talking about the compliance appearance a dr this is a code compliant project it is dr because of it's neighborhood and you know instituted dr so what has to be shown something that exceptional
9:21 am
or extraordinary with those moichgsz i have a trouble finds that exception we tend toward not a lot of instructors on the tops of building but assess we need an slate and stairways way before i ask you to speak i have a question in the packet only page 2 it has what the commissioners were to modify the project and the structure. >> you okay okay. no problem the commissioners made a following suggestions to modify i want to go over to understand what we're removing the structure at the rear looks like
9:22 am
they did that is - can you give us a read. >> so what happened in that case in this situation is by removing it from the rear property line and attaching it to the back of the building it has exacerbated what we're hoping would be eliminated bowl eliminating those two units we realized that one commissioner side or one person at the commission maybe you can think about attaching it to the rear of the sgrasht it into the fronted building, however, sgrabt it operationally is one thing and attaching it at the back the building is yet another base new there are 7 additional properties that are effected by that attachment one is personally my own this is lights
9:23 am
on there and the properties on the mccormick streets coordinating across from the properties. >> the structure effects how many properties. >> the revised structure is 20 properties. >> from and the existing conforming and non-conforming is what. >> it effects the non-conforming as is it would be we have been would be. >> right but it effects the same amount of prompts properties. >> that's correct. >> we incorporated the parking they did. >> at the did not. >> oh, they did not okay so i apologize setback from larkin along 17 feet of area. >> excuse me - i believe they
9:24 am
had it at thirty feet and the front building between pacific and larkin is sorry it is all dark. >> move back the units for the other units you've talked about comes to the experience of the rear yard and review as it is vacant lot. >> they have not done that they tenderloin from what we have been able to tell a lot of changes up to 3 days ago. >> but they said they've not by placing the two one bedroom units now what is occurred they've still embolism on the 45 percent rear yard setback and if i may just say this one thing section one 34 doesn't identify
9:25 am
the mohcd to averaging the rear yards not identified maybe assumed because of the other districts that it would be compute but needed specifically identified and . >> can you examine on that corey teague with the zoning administrator she's correct the there's a precision in section one 34 the rear yards basically said that district with a 4 percent requirement will with the average generally speaking that provision only applies to residential indignity and within of the reasons that that subdivision it set up that way historically our commercial district only had a three percent in the city with a rear yards never a need at that point
9:26 am
to have the avrmg in the districts but it is correct that average is not available for to property even this is 45 percent requirement. >> more massing at the ground floor with the open space and i'm sorry what did you say and provided a shorter massing at the ground floor with the open space. >> i believe i wasn't there when that i can't say you know that at least two of the commissioners including commissioner president fong said that is the building makings is two aggressive now this is more aggressive we have are more massing and the setbacks consider it to modify the with the revisions a limousine.
9:27 am
>> i want to do the same thing get a summary of the structure of the rear. >> the three brought the last 25 percent to grade and it brings about a completely different project with the below grade. >> financial feasibility and everything live and this is a setback and we'll provided the setbacks along larkin street for the building facade we were looking at the street 82 you need to full width but provide a section it is opens up a point where the building was across larkin now we'll have setbacks there. >> move back move the back units to the front with the other units. >> we've done that.
9:28 am
>> with a greater than 4 percent rear yard. >> we evaluated that can we bring the grade the mid lot to grade incorporated to do that chop the building in half and not accommodate parking with the staircases and everything it if work. >> so the cement. >> yeah. that's why we put the grade at the rear and the savings accounts of the side. >> we've deny that with the rooftop alone. >> now provide with the open space. >> we did that question brought it down to the grade and we have it thank you. >> can i make one more point the one big obviously all along this is an industrial building in a residential block given an
9:29 am
opportunity to make this a residential building and provide 9 units when we did as revisions we've tucked back and lost 33 percent of the residential area and a loss of 2 three bedrooms so our average a tloouks i think with 33, 2 and 3, one we have them in housing but we do want to keep that obviously to provide more united and make percentage better. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. we do something some years back it was finished and reused of what was a parking garage prior to that a repair facility and they did go somewhat higher and add some on
9:30 am
the back i think that was you know it it had impacts there was a small additional on the south side i can't remember the alleys name it was russel and you know it was very well done with commercial on the ground floor level this is not unlike that? taking some of the existing structure down i have a question for you regarding height of the building the units are being added on if you will could tom mike. >> okay - what is the existing height of the building at this particular time. >> above grade as much. >> we'll call fwrad for our
9:31 am
purposes the existing floor level the existing building which is the mid point at the pacific avenue and this will be the floor of this part right here and that's what it's all about. >> that's 20 feet above grade and in the the existing building 21 a little bit lower at this which is where we pushed 2 one bedrooms i don't think so why the dr requester is saying it made more of an impact it seems like. >> i'll agree. >> yeah. i don't understand that part thank you. >> i'd like to make one for the record it was made there were 21 units growing units effected that's innovates true there are 10 contiguous properties and one of the
9:32 am
contiguous is code compliant at 25 percent so i want to make that very, very clear we're trying to make sense for the past builders that built into their propelling this is the fit is. >> i understand what you're doing the other thing i on the dr requester put up a line at the 45 percent rear yard that's where the taller section the 40 foot section ended so as you good from there it is the rear section zero grade or 3 feet whatever the grade. >> correct i don't think so the impacts here the only thing i can possibly entertain the depth on the top if they're necessary for
9:33 am
the project to go forward i will listens to what the the commissioners think if this has any merit. >> the one thing we did the destine you saw on february 11th had anti to the edge of this we set them 5 feet so the prospective from the public area public realm will not be 44 more like 40 starting feet so we made that concession. >> i understand you did that from the - their setback. >> i think so. >> we'll see i don't see the harm in the decks i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to ask the gentleman as it whether or not you looked at the sanborn map i think the buildings that are there we are built prior to the
9:34 am
code prescribing the required rear yard you referred to as non-compliant that is a residential neighborhood i assume i want to take issue where your paycheck to non-conforming rear yard when they were existing prior to the codes explaining the rear yard but the code you gave a number of years ago it required the property to provide 4 percent below grade is basically non-complienlt and explain what you're showing on the section where at least the way i read the section describe it to me tell me where the section and i fail to see that's my problem at
9:35 am
least. >> 83.3. >> yeah. a section drawings agriculture yes. >> north of section drawings through the building showing the rear yard in the way your proposing to configure it and amended i mentioned it you're telling me telling the commission our rear yard operates on is same level as your ground floor on which you are locating parking; is that correct. >> no, i didn't make that stipulation the drawings unfortunately, we reduced that rear yard deck to 3 feet we're showing 5 feats on the drawings and would you mind putting that on the overhead and push it up it's the east west higher-up
9:36 am
there we go. >> i have a different section drawing this deck right here on our drawing is 5 feet above the garage. >> uh-huh. >> we have agreed to reduce that our new graphic that was submitted reduced that to 3 feet our understanding from tplannin staff is that 3 feet above grade is code compliant we're using this elevation from the parking level we think is the natural grade of this building. >> what i'll surprised about is that the concrete floor does not reach to the rear of the property that at least in the section drawing i have here it
9:37 am
looks like the floor has been rays above above dash grade and it's on top of i don't understand we're not able to put the gasped on the grade and i want it ask the accountants architect that have a holds on mccormick talk about the transition between his garden and this particular rear garden would you mind coming up you testified your property adjoins this how do you see the grade different and your response what is presents presented. >> i own with an - and properties on the larkin street side are 3 feet below and all
9:38 am
their levels are one foot above grade except my property the national natural grade their drawings show the grades in the back of the building and college that is down at the level of their lot. >> it is clear enough but from our prospective your describing it more into obligation then remodels will this building provide it on existing grade on soil. >> certainly they're taking out the first slab of the first three percent and raising the grade 5 feet now they're only going to raise it 3 feet and putting the slab back in at that level.
9:39 am
>> thank you for explaining that i said earlier the drawings are not executive setting back this building apart from the neighborhood a modification of on grade gardens with real soil this is really what the 45 percent rear yard tries to have eve if so a smaller rear yard it should operate on grade and soil in addition we want to commend - thank you sir, i know you came as a second architect and of these it harder i believe the building to the site east side as well as to the west side has pulled back a little bit but not prove or disprove deal with the issues of privacy we're still having opted out portions of the side roofs we have balconies
9:40 am
coming from bedrooms and living room into the opted out roof and i believe this the rear terrace on unit 203 and 4 would also need to hold back in line with the building in order to create a proper spapgs between the properties when people stands on the terraces at the, a lot both other people's bedrooms he find that unacceptable this project has a lot of issues and evolved i think i don't think we can redesign the building but this this needs more work i can't support this as is. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i'll be amenable to make minor changes one of them would be it seems to me what rear yard
9:41 am
grade see he'll be willing to take dr and drop the grade to who's considered the soil level of people have spoken to for the 25 percent rear yard and then also want to ask commissioner moore to tell me about the seat that is bothering her i'm not sure whether it is to take the decks out or make them smaller what's your interest. >> not a question of that that sensitivity towards the privacy of the adjoining buildings the earth hoa's to make to the sliding doors and proximity to maximum misses all and every inch of potentially usable space at the acceptance of labors this requires more than talking where
9:42 am
the things occur but someone looking at this more wholeheartedly. >> naomi kelly in most of the discussions we talk about an urban environment people have decks if people don't want privacy they don't have to pull the shades this is plastering whole thing a distance so, anyway i think let's hear i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say and commissioner hillis. >> so on this you know, i agree with commissioner moore we're not there yet this project tends to be tired and angry but i think that the positive thing actually a great potential we've added to the confusion with that
9:43 am
discussion and tried to check off boxed that kind of some of that intent we're trying to do but in total i don't think we're we're not there yet it is a challenging site but you're trying to keep the existing building and work with that are demo it and build a new project this is hallway there a potential either way i've talked about about the project sponsor we keep the two units in the back and drop the grade with a smaller front i know i have parking needs and concerns they have at grade parking that is causing problems in the retail use so i think we need to steps back and ask the planning department to look at it is working with the pardon and a couple of us and try to
9:44 am
challenge ourselves to get a better project here warranty think i take responsibility we've given you comments that contradicted with other people's comments and we're not there yet we'll 2009 get there with a project is disappoints us all i think there is a built in environment we have to keep in mind but i think that is a great site with a great project on that will work we're not there yet you know i'll be open to continuing it and working on that or hopefully you know engage the staff and a couple of folks from the neighborhoods and, sir but to get a better project i think we can be proud of her. >> is that a motion. >> sure. >> i'd like to not give it a
9:45 am
time i realize we've put you back this is the second bite but want to get it right. >> nibble at it. >> a quick note that was reviewed with the staff and the designer at the policy cooperation light here we go that would be helpful if we had some type of - i know - >> i understand i don't think that that caused the problems last time we give individual direction and you know differently peep had different ideas and end up not there in the past we've done a process a couple of us get engaged with you and others from the staff as well as the architect and tried to come to a quick resolution of a project that i think could
9:46 am
work better. >> thanks. >> maybe that's pie in the sky by - >> so i guess a couple of things i like continuing it and commissioner hillis and commissioner moore on the sub group with the design i guessed a thought that rising above the conversation here it seems like retaining the existing portion of the existing structure kaufrgz issues to me start over i know 2 seems like that the cost engineering for what is there from a greater point of view and money point of view i get it but lastly i look at the project from the sky i can't help think of all the zoning administrators in noah valley it is reasonable like a hotel
9:47 am
resort with all the decks and that is a compound sitting in the middle of the area i'll definitely try to ask you to open up and make that less resort i know usual maximumings that but it is so close to everything. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think continuing summoned will have to be one time more but ask the project architect to make all those things we're hearing. >> i would like to get common direction i think that you know we came to la and we had to pick up the parts and working closely is w
9:48 am
the staff and had neighborhood meetings and meet our february 11th comments i think we read them well and he thought we designed it responsibly to those comments but what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? you guys have to bear the burn to tell you what you're directions are you know if this is too big the project sponsor does want to retain this building and it is an adapt active reuse to destroy that this and start over it is a totally deft project that's not in his goal program right now i'll say that maybe i'm systematically b spoke for him but to tune this up a little bit we'll need to get evans comments back and forth i don't think anything will happen shorter
9:49 am
think outside the box that a very nuanced project. >> june 30th. >> i'll recommend that date and okay. let's continue to june 30th i'll add a couple of things there seems to me about the grade level of the rear yard and not being low enough so i think that is one thing it has to be what we consider upgrade that something i heard and heard the commissioners talk about the location size of decks on both the top of the higher part of the structure as well as the ones on the east and west i'm not assessing you have to listen to to the the commissioners and if they're in a narrower form or eliminated those are the only 20/20 things i've heard that
9:50 am
makes anything needed to be done i'm hearing from the other commissions there are new issues that are not protected it is what it is that's the thank we deal with. >> commissioners if i may jump in i think i heard from commissioner hillis was a suggestion that a couple of commissioners sit down and work rather than having a before and after contradiction so the couple of commissioners will sit down with staff and sit at the table rather than a dialogue it is challenging reverent. >> so i'll suggest that we sit up a meeting as quickly as possible is commissioner hillis and commissioner moore and little project sponsors. >> on pennsylvania and to the projects that were members from
9:51 am
other groups. >> i didn't there were 3 people from the neighborhood extremely successful way of doing things conversations challenges yet great exchange of bringing it. >> commissioner hillis will be having the same level especially sits on the commission. >> thank you. >> can i ask for more classification for direction. >> commissioner moore. >> director rahaim i appreciate your summarizing what i think commissioner hillis summarized preferred way of doing it also paraphrasing we think things somebody said but start with an open mind and fresh and highlighting the activities and the conflict and the potential solutions and move forward with a clean slate
9:52 am
nothing and everything is on the table to discuss to agree on with a positive way this is the housing size no doubt in my mind about this is i know you will have a sixth body of experience and nothing is undoable except the realistic questions and certain observations we have normal than you participate in the conversation he feel this is the best way of handling it. >> if i may pest of that will be helpful in the community can identify two or three people. >> ms. tucker are you prepared to do that now can you please come up and let us know. >> let me talk with
9:53 am
practical please carry on conversations out in the hallway. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to june 30th and to have community meeting with at least 2 of the commissioners to be part of that commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson excuse me. sxheer commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and place you on general public comment i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment no seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> .
9:54 am
9:55 am
9:56 am
9:57 am
9:58 am
>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been
9:59 am
on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape
10:00 am
the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco