the buildings are of this mass. we need to know that this is not being done to evict a tenant, and i agree with commissioner johnson we should kind of ask. i know we get the answer that there's no he vacation here, and that's great, but if this is leading to an eviction, we've been charged with kind of helping protect those units and not have a renovation proceed to an eviction. but if a building is vacant, let's figure out a way to improve it, perhaps make the units a little more equal. there's probably gidifferent ws to skin that. i don't know how viable that commercial space is now. is the space actually in use right now as a commercial space? >> no, because there's holes in the floor where they did the exploration on the foundation so it's not habitable. >> president hillis: okay.

but i don't know if that's something that planning wanted in this space. it's not your typical -- it's not on union street or chestnut street, filbert isn't. i know there's commercial next door on octavia. i don't know that that's required. could that be an a.d.u. when you get four units in this building with no park are or could you combine it with the upper units and get more equal-sized units. >> and the answer is yes, presumably, you can add an a.d.u., one up to five units or less, one a.d.u. >> president hillis: but can you add an a.d.u. in commercial space? >> cory teague, zoning administrator. you can't take commercial space in a neighborhood district or in chinatown, but out here in these spaces, you can convert l.c.u. space to an a.d.u., so that is a possibility. >> president hillis: right.

so i think we just -- i mean, i think the biggest question is what's happening, is this being done, and a tenant is being evicted. and then, i think if we can get an answer to that question, we can look at the unit seismics and make it seem not so much like one master -- you know, monster unit. it's not huge. it's a 2,000-square-foot unit. mr. teague? >> thank you. i just wanted to address the specifics of the variance briefly. i do think when it comes to if there's any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, it's clear that this lot and really this entire corner of this block was given up a long time ago in terms of having any kind of rear yards or midblock over space. it's definite lie a smaller lot and smaller than typical. so there are extraordinary circumstances here. i think the questions get into

whether or not those circumstances are preventing the project from achieving any property right that it wouldn't be able to get. it's already at maximum density, and then we're getting into other issues that are there other negative impacts that the variance will cause? those are questions that we're still looking at now. i think it's mentioned there's three units now and there's no open space. the roof deck would add open space for one of those units, which is seen as a possible. especially considering the rear yard variance request, it is kind of taking that extra rear yard variance space and adding the rear yard space, as well. that may be a little more than what is needed for a single unit. i did have one question for the project sponsor, which is if you look at this top unit the way it's signed, and some of the details, it's proposed to have a parking space and a

garage and a mechanical seat potentially to go up -- so i'm curious, is this specifically being designed for seniors or persons with disabilities, the top floor? >> so first of all, i just want to say that the top floor is 1800 square feet. the 2200 includes the elevator shaft at the top of the stair and the elevator at the second floor. the penthouse, yes, the owners have experienced some health issues in the past couple of years. they wanted a unit that could be for a person with disabilities, somebody that maybe couldn't use the stairs, that they could still get out to the outdoor space, and that's why they wanted to be able to have a stair chair that could go up to the penthouse because the planning department won't allow an elevator to go up to the roof deck. also, the owner -- i know this

issue was the tenant and coming up. if we, you know, just followed what the rent board rules are, is that good enough or are you asking for something more than what the rent board asked for? >> i'll defer to the commissioners to address that in just a moment. i did want to check on one other thing, though. you know, the proposed right now is to basically take the units on the ground floor and kind of move it to the new third floor, essentially. i'm just curious, was there any exploration of taking, for example, the unit c and expanding that with the stairway to the third floor and essentially keeping the other two units as-is but expanding unit c without the rear yard variance. you still get a larger unit -- and i'm not sure if there were other -- [inaudible] >> -- we wants to take space from the third floor and add it to the second floor, you're

going to need additional stair space. the problem is with the bedrooms. there's very little circulation space left on the lot. i know the d.r. applicant suggested we turn the commercial space into a residential unit, and i thought that was not a good solution because all the windows would be right at sidewalk level. there'd be very little privacy because there's no rear yard. i call it living in a fish bowl if we turn the kmecommercial se to residential. >> thank you. >> president hillis: in the rhenboard, we get there are rules about relocation and the right to return. i think we're looking for you to tell us how you're going to implement those. for example, the conservatory of music did this right down the street where they took a building, tore it down and building another building. they met with all the tenants

and figured out as to where they were going to go. the tenants were here, and they supported the project. i think we want to see that on a smaller scale of -- >> what's in it. >> president hillis: yeah. >> okay. >> president hillis: so i'm sensing a motion, a desire to continue. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: make a motion to continue this into next year? >> president hillis: early january ? i'd go early january , given the holiday. >> clerk: then january 10. >> president hillis: okay. the 10. second. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could anybody restate why we are continuing it? is there an expectation that we are seeing an a.d.u., is there an exploration into a potential reassigning of unit size, etc.,

eventually even exchanging where the larger unit is based on mr. teague's suggestions? i'd like to see a new approach which really clearly delineates objectives which are in line with the responsibilities that we are tasked with. >> president hillis: yeah. i think first and foremost is the tenants and the issue with the tenant. and i think secondly, yeah, if there's a -- if we can look at an option that has a little bit more equal size units -- i guess that there's a third floor that's going to be built that's going to have a full floor, but is there a way to look at that commercial unit differently. ground floor of units aren't the best, but perhaps you can tie them to the units above and there could -- you know, those could be two larger -- two large units, too, with the third-floor unit, and there's no parking or there's parking and the ability to do that, where you give a little more

space to those units on the second floor. does that sound right, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: yes. i'd still like to suggest that the architect explore a.d.u.'s in san francisco. we have a.d.u.'s that are partially at level of street because they are partially below grade. there are plenty of possibilities to protect street-facing units that still guarantee privacy. i think it's more of a design issue and a familiarity of what a.d.u.s are allowed to do or not allowed to do in the city. i would still like to see it, because i think it would greatly enhance the availability of this project, even as it would be considered for variance. >> clerk: commissioners, i apologize. you already have four d.r.'s on the 10th. would you still like to move it

on the 10th or on the 17? [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. very good. should i call the question? >> president hillis: i'm sorry. please. >> clerk: on that motion, commissioners, to continue this matter with direction from the commission to january 17 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that passes -- that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> i'll close the public hearing on the variance and continue it to january 17. >> clerk: very good. item 23 was continued. commissioners, that'll place us on item 24 for case 2017-2294,

2271 diamond street. >> good evening, president hillis and commissioners. this item is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of permit application 2017-07252906 to construct a two-story vertical addition to an existing one-story single-family house built in 1908. the site is a 749-square-foot irregular shaped corner lot that slopes up both street frontages. it has a 15-foot deep wedge shaped east facing rear yard. it was determined that this building is a category c historic resource and not a demolition persection 317 as the planning code. the reason for the d.r., the d.r. requester, kyle mock, of 2605 diamond, the adjacent property to the south, is concerned with five main issues. one, that the overall height

and massing is out of scale with the context, particularly located on the small, irregular lot, corner lot at the top of a hill which is further exacerbated by the lack of a front set back and the addition of a multistory bay window. two, that the entry on sussex street, instead of diamond like the adjacent neighbors and the new garage on diamond is out of character with the existing pattern of the neighborhood. number three, that the loss of on-street parking space on diamond and because of the proposed curb cut is next to a bus stop location interferes with muni operations. number four, that property line windows are blocked by the proposal and the new window directly across an existing window. five, that the finestration shape and pattern do not match the existing building or the neighborhood character. to date, the department has received -- sorry, i'm going to update this. to date, the department has received two letters in

opposition and 12 letters or e-mails in support. in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, the department has rereviewed the project with respect to the residential design guidelines and found that although the site is unusual in shape, the proposal does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions with respect to the existing block face along diamond is two-plus to three-story buildings with no consistent pattern of set backs. one, the proposed three-story building maintains the scale of the block, including the adjacent neighbor and steps up with the topo graphy. due to the project of the site, the building is classify does as a three story over garage. it also has opportunity to celebrate the corner condition with more massing.

number two, the existing entry on sussex, as a corner building, it may determine its entrance. as many other buildings on that face have garages on diamond, this is not exceptional. in fact, the property catty corner has a garage in the coach stop facing the other direction. number four, property line windows, a noncomplying condition are not protected by planning code or guidelines, and number five, the window pattern has been determined to be compatible in overall size, scale and amount. with this, the department finds that the project meets recommended standards and guidelines and recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you.

d.r. requester. >> good afternoon. we're very grateful for your time. i'm kyle mack. i am not the only household seeking or individual seeking discretionary review. in fact six households in the immediate area of the property have requested jointly discretionary review, and that i think speaks volumes to the significant proposal that we have. i'll try to be concise by focusing on three specific points, and i want to start with the good news. the good news is i don't think there's anyone in this room who objects to improvement or even substantial enlargement under the current property. this current property has beens

intended to unfold.

and the reason that we're here is because the proposal that we have, the current proposal that we have really is extreme. and to understand why it's extreme, you have to think about three different aspects of it. the first is that the floor plate of the existing building is exceptionally small, it's about 700 square feet. this proposal would put three stories of 700 square feet or less on top of a full height basement garage. i have asked the project sponsor repeatedly and neither they or i can find another building in the city of san francisco that has this much mass on this size of floor plate. this matters because a building with these unique proportions does not by definition fit within the character of the neighborhood in which it's being built. now, some substantial construction can still be accommodated, but it would

require a reduction in the height of the building. the building's shape exacerbates this problem. the building is shaped more like a tadpole with a wide front and skinny tail. that can be accommodated with something less than the extreme height than they're asking for. and finally, the building really creates a dead zone at the corner of diamond and sussex. the project sponsor, and i think planning has the same perspective, it is common to have a taller building at the corner. if you approach the building from my house or from sussex street or across the street on diamond street, you are not encountering anything about this building that welcomes you into the block or book ends en

block as the code requires. you walk into a block wall. last point, there is no precedent for this building, and that's what makes it so exceptional. but there is precedent for the decision that you have to make because just last year, another building of similar height, oddly enough on a similar sized oddly shaped lot was in front of you, and remarkably that was just one block from this property, and the developer of that project told you that if you took a story off of it, they couldn't build it, but you took a story off of it any way. that architect is the architect here. what we have is virtually the same argument, we can't go build it if we don't get

everything we want. guess what? if you go down and look at that property, they've broken ground, and they're doing what you said, and there's no reason not to support this. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, any public comment in support. -- support of the d.r. requesters? >> my name is donna. i was born and raised in 2605 diamond street, so i know the area very well as many of the neighbors. we're happy to see the vacant grocery store become a home in our neighborhood, but my husband are strongly opposed to the proposed height and density of the proposed project. at the initial july 2017 meeting, i expect concerns about the uncharacteristic nonharmonious design, the architect suggested i send

designs that would be more appropriate. i e-mailed photos of each homes on our block and homes on the adjacent streets. our block has victorians and a variety of homes built up to the early 70's or 80's. most homes are set back with two stories and no garage or a single story over a garage. our home is neighborhood for families with children, couples and singles. across the street from 2601 are three homes that have less than 700 square feet in each. we do not need such height density for those who would love to live in glen park, a neighborhood surrounded by parks, alleys and trees. i know the storefront property at 2601 diamond very well. it was herb's grocery, my parents bought mom and pop's

grocery store these tiny grocery store lots were never intended to become such large developments. the 2601 development as proposed will set a very dangerous precedent for developers who desire to build to the max for the max. on a personal level, my views and trees of the trees and hills of the sussex lot will be blocked. as will the living room view of my friend at 94 sussex street. they're out of the country and cannot be here today. a home with a garage and one story would be most appropriate for this tiny lot. a significant compromise would be a garage plus two stories, with a set back on the second. if you have any interest at all in keep the character of our immediate neighborhood, the development needs to be

severely modified. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is abigail lehrman. i live at 2601 diamond street. we bought our home in 1979, and i've lived in that neighborhood all this time. a lot of changes have happened in glen park, and i have never come here to, you know, request a change in any of the buildings that have gone on, but this particular building, the size of it, and the way it's jut out onto the street doesn't feel like it fits the character of our neighborhood. there are many photos that dawn isaacs took of other possible designs that could be utilized on that space.

we do want a place on that space because it has been really a mess for a long, long time. so it would be wonderful to have a home on that street, just not to the size that would contradict all the other buildings in our neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good evening. my name is tina barcino, and i am a resident of 2614 diamond, so i am across the street facing the property hoping to be developed. also, i wanted to say thank you very much for staying late this evening to here our final item on the agenda tonight. additionally, i do want to also call out my support for development of the property. i've been in the neighborhood about six years now, and i've had two daughters. my oldest has just started at gold park elementary, so i feel very connected to the community. i feel quite lucky that dawn

isaac's has lived on this block her whole life, and the community that we have made and met being on this street in glen park has really been incredibly meaningful. so as this property has been proposed, i would like to call out as others have noted, having such a heightened unit at the top of the hill is quite dramatic and seems a bit extreme. in addition there's no set back which is something that i thought wasn't even allowed. at one point, we were thinking about developing our house a bit further, and speaking with the architect, there was set backs, we could only raise 10 feet back from the street, something to that effect. i'm not well versed in the particulars, which is why i'm here with all of you, of course, but i would like to just express that i would love for our neighborhood to continue to have the feel of community, to continue to have the character. i myself have a victorian home,

and in no way would i expect that now developments would look anything like that. i feel great to be a part of that san francisco history now. so together, i hope we can find a better resolution to get new people living in the property in a place that everyone feels enhanced the community in a way that's very meaningful and lives with what we have today, so thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i get a little nervous. hi. my name is sarah vanness, and i live up the hill at diamond and moffitt at 2510 diamond. specifically, and most important is the height of the

structure. the majority of homes on diamond street from bosworth all the way to moffitt, which i walked today just to make sure i'm not making it up are mostly two stories over garage. the sponsor is proposing three stories over garage. i would also like to see some set backs to interrupt the imposing effects to the remaining two stories over garage the sheer wall creates. there are small lots in the neighborhoods for a reason. when built properly they can provide more affordable homes for teachers, firefighters and police officers to live in the community. instead, sponsors building out sized projects continues to erode diversity from a physical standpoint as a well as a human one. what does it mean for the

property that they own and have in sunnyside less than a mile away. you can ask him to sign a form to live there, but i'm not sure how you enforce these forms. what i am sure of once this gets built, it will never get smaller. they've made no effort to consider the surrounding street character perthe residential design guidelines. they've made no effort to work compatibly with the neighbors would have been trying to engage with them. they've made no accommodations or even recognized that the purpose of the many touch points in the process are to find reasonable common ground, and now we're here because they have ignored the neighbors and dismissed the process with the intention to build as big a structure as this board will allow. please help. otherwise, neighbors have no effective voice. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. john rohoski, local architect and builder. i've been on both sides of this podium, for and against projects, but i am helping my

neighbors out because i'll tell you a story. i'm just a few doors away. i applied for a story addition for my house, and the planning department says you've got to step it back 8 feet, 10 feet, and i did. no variance, no nothing. basically two stories over garage. the proposed project seems to be three stories over garage. i would suggest that you insist that they lop off a story and set it back. and being -- i understand the r.d.g. guidelines as far as making a corner property significant, let's say, but does it have to be a skinny tower? and can something be done with the corner, architecturally speaking, of diamond and sussex

so it's not just a plain, rigid corner. perhaps the architect can, you know, get his pencils and computer out and come up with some interesting designs that fit in more with our quaint little glen park neighborhood. so nice being here again. haven't been here in a few years. i'm glad that you give attention to this and to what my neighbors have to say because they are a little upset about what's going in there. it is out of place, and needs to be redesigned. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, and thank you again for staying late to accommodate all of us. i'm a resident directly behind the proposed building? i've lived in glen park for about four years now, and with my other neighbors, i want to say that i'm very happy that the owner of the building is doing something about it.

it's been what i would say a derelict building with lots of debris, trash out front. difficult even to park on sussex out in front of the building because there's so much debris on the street. we've even asked the current owner to clean it up and that was a difficult conversation. in terms of the residential -- the design guidelines, this current build does not fit within those guidelines given that the height to floor plate ratio is effectively making it a narrow tower, as everyone else has described, unlike any other structure in the neighborhood. we're all very passionate about our community and our town and we want to make sure that it stays within the guidelines as the city has described. we feel that this is out of character of the neighborhood, distracting from the look and feel of the surrounding homes, and i ask you to please reconsider the height of the building. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi name is maureen lynch.

[inaudible] >> clerk: you're listed at one of the d.r. requesters? >> i am. >> clerk: so your time to speak was in the first five minutes, but you can also use the rebuttal. >> no, that's okay. >> president hillis: any other public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? >> good evening. my name is troy kashanipour. i'm the architect. i'll start with correcting a couple of statements made by the d.r. requesters.

previously, the owner removed a fourth floor. we -- removed a fourth floor. we don't have a fourth floor in our building. they keep saying we have three stories over garage. we do not. we have three stories starting from the garage at sussex greet, and a garage below grade. the owner is investing in a basement. the d.r. requester is saying we didn't meet with them or offer any compromises. we went through an extensive revision proposed that was rejected by them, and you'll see that in your packet to try to activate the facade and accentuate the corner more at diamond and sussex as they requested. we're conforming to set backs. it takes dilapidated building and makes a family-sized home,

which is three bedrooms, a kind of constrained kitchen and dining, living space, and on the top floor because of that constrained living space, there's an additional den space. we're 1800 square feet at this property. if this had been a full-sized lot and not an unusual -- slightly unusual lot where the corner condition curves at the street, we could build about a 3,000 square feet, so we're about three-firths of the size in terms of -- fifths of the size of where we could built, and this is indicated in data by homes built in glen park since 1990, and these are on more typical-sized lots. the d.r. filers have called the

building a tower. i would urge you to really examine the three dimensional views in your package and tell me if you are reading that as a tower. happy to work with the commission if they prefer the optional design. the building owner prefers the first design, and i'll answer any questions you have. i'm going to turn the remaining time over to john kevlan. >> thank you, commissioners. john kevlan on proper of the project sore, mark and he van wall as well as their so--. -- their son, mark. they've taken steps as much as possible to minimize the mapping of this building. all of the floor heights are #.5 feet, which are the very

minimum fired by the building code. excavation was done to accommodate the parking unit so that the ground floor was not moved up at all to accommodate the parking space and of course we're not seeking any variances here. now with the residential designed guidelines called for is to follow the topography of the street, if i could just get the overhead. if you take a look here. as you're looking up the street, the building steps up, along with the topography. looking down the other way, once again, stepping down with the street. [inaudible] >> -- the existing build environment slopes with the topography of the street, just like what is being proposed here. again, up one block, you still see buildings move with the topography. you can see that there's not a

very severe existing character of architecture in the neighborhood, either. the project's height actually is only roughly 7 feet taller than the roof line of the d.r. requester's home, and we're uphill, as well. to put it in perspective, if the d.r. requester's request to take the third floor off this building, it would takeoff the top floor of this home, which is not following the character of this building which is within the residential design guidelines. i'll leave it there for now. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. public comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> very briefly, and thank you

for your time again. to emphasize that the building is three stories, but the phrase that follows is at the grade of diamond street. on sussex street, the grade slopes sharply down. there, it is not perceptively three stories, but four. if you look at the paperwork, they describe it as three stories on top of a garage -- on top of a basement. it just happens that that basement is not below ground at diamond street. but in any case, they're talking about metes and bounds, and not the experience of the builder. troy mentioned the alternate tiff that th tive -- alternative, and they did provide that to us, although it was after we filed the d.r. it maintains the mass of the building.

in fact it may make the mass of the building bigger, so i am grateful for their effort, but i'm afraid that their effort is more intended to give them an opportunity to say they proposed an alternate tiive tho give us an alternative that we are entitled to engage with constructively. no proposal of any nature was made like that before the d.r., appropriately so. the last point is maybe the most important, and that is that troy tells us, you know, if this is a full-size lot, think of what you could do. well, think of what you could do if it was a full-size lot. the crux of the d.r. is the size of the lot has to be accounted for when you look at what makes sense in the neighborhood context and for the feel of the neighborhood. their proposal quite clearly doesn't do that. they are instead thinking if we had a big lot, we could do this, so surely, we can do

something as big as what's proposed. that just doesn't work. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, john kevlan again. very briefly, the residential design guidelines talk about the experience at the street with the topography is not emphasizing how many floors are in a building however much the height it. i just want to emphasize it. we're just talking about how the buildings step down from the street. i think what we're talking about here is we've got an odd, small sized lot. we've been able to appropriately design an 1800-square-foot building, not a mention. i think if you look at the floor plans, they're not massive, they're not out of scale. and eventually, it's being developed to house the family that is proposing it. so i think it -- it fits with the neighborhood and we're here if you have any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so commissioner moore?

>> commissioner moore: is it commissioner's questions? okay. i believe that building in the 1800-square-foot lot on this particular site is appropriate. i do not see anything exceptional or extraordinary. i think the project is balanced and carefully divided and the owners working with the architect, and i'm in favor of what i see. i think it's a skillful solution in how it deals with parking, not adding height to the building as measured from sussex is indeed the way we want to go. and the stepping, which is extremely important. everywhere in the city is also very well done, so i'm fine with what is proposed here. move to approve. >> second. >> president hillis: can i just ask, i want to just ask a question, i wasn't quite understanding that the middle

floor above the garage. i mean, if you look at -- so. >> i think that floor is kind of illustrated in the section if you happen to have it, but basically, the garage -- >> president hillis: let me just throw this out. the garage goes -- just the height. >> so to illustrate, the garage is kind of nested in -- >> president hillis: just flip that -- yeah, yeah. >> i'm sorry? >> president hillis: no, he's right. >> okay. >> president hillis: yeah. >> the garage door is kind of straddling the basement and the first floor so that as that garage or as the -- there's a ramp down into the garage space, there's some stepping of that floor plate, which you can -- >> president hillis: so what's above that. >> storage essentially, kind of stepped storage following the -- >> president hillis: okay. >> -- ramp down. it's like a tunnel, basically.

>> president hillis: i get that. i'm torn -- it seems a little large and tall for that lot, but you could have gone and done kind of two full height above that garage, and i think that would have still put you above the top of the neighbor's floor. you did that, which i think was a little bit unique, and you brought it down to not be terribly higher than the neighbors, so i agree. it's a little bit out of character in that it's this three stories above the garage, but i don't see anything terribly extraordinary on the way it's -- it looks and feels as a result of that. and a little bit on what you did on that second floor. all right, jonas. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion sha--

[roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us under general public comment, for which i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: is there any general public comment? mr. schulman? >> thank you, commissioners. very briefly, i just wanted to speak to having public comment at the end of the meeting. if it's a one-time deal, i understand. >> president hillis: yeah, one-time deal. >> perfect. >> president hillis: although the board -- i think one of the challenges that we have are, you know, sometimes the public comment gets dominated by topics that are on future calendars. >> i understand. i just think if you want to move that direction, just please agendaize it and have public comment. >> president hillis: right, but it's just one time. all right. any additional public comment? all right. meeting's adjourned.

>> usf donates 100-120 pounds of food a night. for the four semesters we have been running here, usf has donated about 18,000 pounds of food to the food recovery network. ♪ ♪

>> i'm maggie. >> i'm nick. >> we're coe-chairs of the national led organization. what food recovery does is recover and redistribute food that would go wasted and redistributing to people in the community. >> the moment that i became really engaged in the cause of fighting food waste was when i had just taken the food from the usf cafeteria and i saw four pans full size full of food perfectly fine to be eaten and made the day before and that would have gone into the trash that night if we didn't recover it the next day.

i want to fight food waste because it hurts the economy, it's one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. if it was a nation, it would be the third largest nation behind china and the united states. america wastes about 40% of the food we create every year, $160 billion worth and that's made up in the higher cost of food for consumers. no matter where you view the line, you should be engaged with the issue of food waste. ♪ ♪ >> access edible food that we have throughout our lunch program in our center, i go ahead and collect it and i'll cool it down and every night i

prep it up and the next day i'll heat it and ready for delivery. it's really natural for me, i love it, i'm passionate about it and it's just been great. i believe it's such a blessing to have the opportunity to actually feed people every day. no food should go wasted. there's someone who wants to eat, we have food, it's definitely hand in hand and it shouldn't be looked at as work or a task, we're feeding people and it really means so much to me. i come to work and they're like nora do you want this, do you want that? and it's so great and everyone is truly involved. every day, every night after every period of food, breakfast,

lunch, dinner, i mean, people just throw it away. they don't even think twice about it and i think as a whole, as a community, as any community, if people just put a little effort, we could really help each other out. that's how it should be. that's what food is about basically. >> an organization that meets is the san francisco knight ministry we work with tuesday and thursday's. ♪ ♪ by the power ♪ of your name >> i have faith to move

mountains because i believe in jesus. >> i believe it's helpful to offer food to people because as you know, there's so much homelessness in san francisco and california and the united states. i really believe that food is important as well as our faith. >> the san francisco knight ministry has been around for 54 years. the core of the ministry, a group of ordain ministers, we go out in the middle of the night every single night of the year, so for 54 years we have never missed a night. i know it's difficult to believe maybe in the united states but a lot of our people will say this is the first meal they've had in two days. i really believe it is a time

between life or death because i mean, we could be here and have church, but, you know, i don't know how much we could feed or how many we could feed and this way over 100 people get fed every single thursday out here. it's not solely the food, i tell you, believe me. they're extremely grateful. >> it's super awesome how welcoming they are. after one or two times they're like i recognize you. how are you doing, how is school? i have never been in the city, it's overwhelming. you get to know people and through the music and the food, you get to know people. >> we never know what impact we're going to have on folks. if you just practice love and kindness, it's a labor of love and that's what the food

recovery network is and this is a huge -- i believe they salvage our mission. >> to me the most important part is it's about food waste and feeding people. the food recovery network national slogan is finding ways to feed people. it's property to bring the scientific and human element

>> the meet willing come to order. welcome to the november 28, 2018 rescheduled meeting. to my right is vice chair supervisor ronen and supervisor peskin. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: please silence your cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the