because we hear and recognize the complexity that this is your life, and this is a complex situation. i think, you know, the news or the information that this was originally actually two units, and at some point it became a single-family home, and that this might go back to two units, it is appealing, and at the same time, i also recognize that, you know, this is -- there is already a significant square footage within the house, and i think it is workable, and that is -- i am just saying that to say that this is a really difficult deliberation for us, and that's why you can see as going back and forth. i think, ultimately, i do really like the idea of this house going back to two units, wanting to make sure that it actually is rented out and used as two units , but if a fellow

commissioner wants to weigh in, i will pass the microphone. >> you can see we are a couple commissioners short tonight, and we are not going to be able to literally come to a decision with four votes. i would feel better if the d.r. applicants had a little more information regarding the sun study and had more time to review it, but also, i see the need for the expansion, but also see the possibilities for the excavation and staying within the envelope. i will make a motion to continue this. i will continue it for a month. >> i think a month is adequate. >> to the project sponsor and the...

>> just to be clear, we are asking them to share the information about the sun study, also explore other alternatives about relocating the expansion through excavation as opposed to adding on that extra story on top, correct? >> correct. mr. lamb, you have been in front of this commission enough to know where we are going here. i think, you know, folks feel like, you know, it is an excessive, you know, having that fifth floor -- >> it is a basement, sorry, i am a little confused. where does one excavate further? are you asking to go -- we are already down a grade level on the basement and first floor for the unit, so i am a little confused on how we should excavate further. >> i think that what -- i will

not speak for commissioner moore , because she is the expert on the design, what i can see is you have a lot of square footage already, but if your goal is to get two units, and, you know, social space and bedroom space, that there is room within the envelope that is already there, and then there is a crawlspace, you know, -- >> there is no crawlspace. there won't be any crawlspace. actually, maybe now that i'm thinking out loud, we had talked about also adding nad you as an option -- also adding an a.d.u. as an option. we think it would be possible. again, the goal is not to get the largest house possible, but they would like to get their three bedrooms on one level. it is really critical. they have almost a two and a 4 -year-old, and you can understand that the current house configuration doesn't allow that. >> so just to be clear, we need

to have two units, and if this is a request about an a.d.u., that would be a third unit. that just needs to be very clear >> go ahead, commissioner. >> you're suggesting that within the existing propose square footage, the existing massing, that they add an a.d.u.? >> i was not saying that. >> he said that. >> i was quickly thinking about that to understand that. i was thinking about the geometry and the need -- really it is a strong need for them to have three bedrooms on one level , and so, you know, maybe we can look -- >> take some of the social space and make it an a.d.u. >> or taking are taking in the lower guest bedroom and sweet and making it into an a.d.u., that would really be -- allow them some flexibility, too. >> commissioner richards did you want to? >> no. >> commissioner moore?

>> i wouldn't mind exploring that. as i said earlier, the fact that we are doing a remodel rather than having a clear definition of a demolition, a demolition would require a new building to operate as a smaller building with 25% rear backyard. we are excluding a building already too large on its lot, so i would become trouble exploring building it out with a caveat that with in that square footage , we are providing an a.d.u., and that would allow you to resize the slightly oversized living spaces and put it into the use of an a.d.u. i would like to see that. >> i'm a little confused. you already are proposing two units. so you are proposing a third? >> this is a little complicated,

but there is currently -- it is undefined. all the planning information -- >> just to be clear, you are proposing a unit that is 1200 square feet in addition to the 3,000 square-foot unit. >> we would remove the thousand square feet for the other larger units, and we would remove square footage from that to make an a.d.u. >> you have a 3,000 -- smaller then a 3,000 square-foot unit to create. >> let's say a 2400 square square-foot three-bedroom, and -- >> but, you are proposing, i think there's confusion here about the concerns. i think the commission has different concerns. >> we are not on the same page here. >> i mean, what you are proposing would be do an a.d.u. to justify the existing mass and size of the building. >> the proposed mass and size of the building. >> i had concerns about the proposed mass, so i'm not sure the a.d.u. is being answered here, frankly. >> i took -- i think there is a difference of, you know, where

the commission is right now, and it might be helpful to have the two additional commissioners. i would support a continuance, you know, my concern was about the mass and the impact on the next-door property because of the positioning of the lot, i would rather see less mass then an a.d.u., but it seems like other commissioners are, you know, not on the same page, -- >> if i may, when a look at the project, when i heard commissioner moore, i -- i heard her concern, not so much about the size, but about the privacy issues along the south wall and all those windows, but were you concerned about the mass going into the backyard or the fifth floor? >> i believe the building is very large, but i believe the department could shave it back in a massing that is, for me, acceptable. i would prefer, though, given the rather slightly oversized nature of the living accessory

spaces, to become a slightly tighter building, in which an a.d.u. could potentially find square footage that would take 3,000 square feet, to perhaps 2400 or something like that. it would be two units, plus an a.d.u. i think that is what is possible here, and since we are continuously battling with single-family homes that don't exist in san francisco, -- we heard a big presentation here this morning. i think we could use this as an example of an otherwise well-designed building to practice that. >> sorry, did somebody second a move? >> i was going to ask if that was a second. >> i don't think anybody -- i guess i can second it. i second the move to continue it commissioner richards? >> i understand commissioner moore's point about the existing

building is intruding, but if we demolish the building and come back with a see you for a new building with two or three units , or whatever, the backyard is kind of useless. is on a slope, it is dark, it will be i.v. growing all over everybody's building. it will be smaller, it but it will be smaller by 9 feet. there is only 8 feet now in the backyard, so you'll create a bigger useless backyard. >> i don't think that's what is being suggested. >> no -- >> where i am going with this is it i agree with commissioner moore. i think we should take d.r., approve the project with a new a.d.u. added in the existing -- the larger unit square footage, and get rid of the issues on the south side by having no windows and no deck that opens to people 's living areas. >> so that proposal would then, basically, insert an a.d.u. into the existing bulk informant

square footage of the proposed building. >> taking it out of the 3,000 square feet. >> and then getting rid of the windows on the south side. >> that is my motion, yes. >> commissioner moore? >> the only reason why i am trying to spell out something, and i'm not the only one who has the right to spell something out , is the fact that if we are continuing, one, we are not the full deck of commissioners care, but we need some construction -- instruction. if you only come back with the same thing and we're starting on the same loop next time, we have not gained anything, so i think we need to add a little bit more here that we, indeed, can present some consensus among five people of why we are sending it back, otherwise we could make a decision today and say, it is what it is. >> commissioner richards? >> first thing, if we wait for the other two commissioners, we will have a 4-3 situation. we will just make the disagreement larger. we know how commissioners behave

and what the views are on these things. it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, and i'm not picking on commissioner hillis in any way, shape, or form, but i think the findings are that there is too much social space in the top unit, that is the issue. >> i think we all agree on that. >> we are saying to convert some of that social space, keep everything else the way it is and convert it with rubrics and how you want to design it. you may have different units on different floors, but make sure the top space is 2400 square feet or less. keep everything else, and get rid of all the stuff on the side , the window, the deck, the opening, et cetera. i truly don't believe that the way -- i really don't believe it has an impact on the people in carson street. it is probably less intrusive. >> the one concern i have is how you design a space within those floors that is actually a separate unit. >> that is what the architect is for mac.

>> we have considered that, and in the foyer, the common foyer, then you would directly open out it is not exactly clear because the a.d.u. installation and the two unit building makes me think that i have to use space that is not ever used for living space, if that is still a regulation. but i think below the garage level, we do have spaces that are definitely not used for living. the a.d.u. law did not change for r.h. one, what our age two -- >> i know there is a strong encouragement to create them and they are very supportive. >> that is what i was referring to. i saw on the map that it was storage, or whatever it is. >> it is just kind of a crawlspace. >> i think it is a question of what you call the a.d.u. versus the second unit. >> exactly.

>> you can make it work. >> i would like a continuance, but no second on that knee -- on that motion. >> commissioners, there is a motion to continue for one month to july 18th. there was a second motion to take d.r., but i did not hear a second. >> can i just clarify? your proposal is, is it with an a.d.u. or not with an a.d.u.? >> a commendation. >> so the procedural matter would take precedent. we'll take of the matter of continuance to july 18th. on the motion to continue with some direction from the commission... [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes 4-1 with

commissioner richards voting against. that will place us on our final action before you tonight, or today. item 14 -- just a second, please items 14 a and b. he will consider conditional use authorization and the sony ministration will consider a request for variance. >> good evening, commissioners. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for demolition of a single-family home at 45 -- the project would demolish the existing 1600 square foot single-family dwelling unit and construct in approximately 4,000 square-foot building with two dwelling units. the project proposes one offstreet parking space and two class one bicycle parking spaces the project is also requesting a variance for exposure and a variance for a 2-foot 2-inch encroachment of the building into the required rear yard.

sincere packets have been published, the department has received three phone calls and one e-mail from surrounding neighbors outlining concerns related to the rear yard variance request, and impact to the adjacent neighbors. after an analysis of all aspects of the project, the department recommends approval for the following. the project of maximizing the in the r.h. two zoning district, and contribute to the housing stock by adding an additional unit. the project site does not have a history of evictions according to the rent board. the project provides adequate front and rear setbacks to preserve the existing midblock open space, and the project is consistent with the planning code and with the objectives and policy of the general plan. the project sponsor will now be making a quick presentation and i will be available for any questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, has now become good evening, planning commissioners and zoning administrator. i am dennis, the project architect.

i'm here with lucas eastwood, the project sponsor and general building contractor. as was mentioned, the proposal seeks to demo an existing two-story single-family home, and a privately owned street to construct a new four-story two family home. we are here in front of the commission requesting a conditional use authorization to remove a dwelling unit, additionally, we are seeking a variance for the newly proposed building to extend 26 inches deeper into the lot than would normally be allowed under r.h. two zoning codes. first to address the see you for demo. our design process looked at options to alter the building under a renovation permit, however demolishing the structure emerged as a practical route as the following considerations were clarified in the process. the written historical evaluation of the 1912 structure , which notes its overall high integrity from a lack of alterations over the years, concluded, nonetheless, that it does not stand out as

being exceptionally representative of the period. many similar homes exist within a two block radius. the planning preservation team also concluded no historic resource to be present and we are satisfied the project is not -- is not removing any structure of historic value to san francisco. the second consideration, one of the project's goals is to align at the entry floor level with the existing sidewalk elevation. demo avoids lifting and lowering the building half a story to provide the floor plate shift, vehicular entry necessitates the street to four alignment, as well as a pedestrian entry without space consuming additional steps, often atypically narrow, 5-foot sidewalks. this critical alignment allows the entire building to be elevator accessible for adaptable living. the third consideration is the scope and scale of the project, as the new four-story building with subgrade excavation requires structural work far exceeding the capacity of the existing foundations and building framing, as a

renovation, the project would be considered tantamount to demolition, and the design team opted for the demo, new construction permitting route to provide the highest level and product with the shortest construction duration. if we had saw some aspect of the existing house was saving, we would have proceeded to keep it. now onto the variance request. this is a very unusual site whereby the lot depth is not only shallow at 68 feet 9 inches , but also starts at the midline of the street. the first 13 feet and 8 inches of the lot overhangs the street and the sidewalk. this block is one of over 250 street segments in san francisco tagged as private, and one applying the proper r.h. two development standards, is 75% buildable lot depth leaves a mere 37-foot 10-inch building. the project is requesting a variance to construct a 40-foot deep building, 26 inches deeper than r.h. two zoning to align

the northern adjacent four story 40-foot deep building, the result to the rear yard is 15 feet deep which meets the planning code minimum. as you can see in the floor plan , the benefits for the project allows for a more spacious one-bedroom lower unit any viable three-bedroom upper unit, both with appropriate bath and closet amenities. overall, the room proportions and spaciousness is built on all three floors, with the top floor conceding the additional building depth and a set shallow exterior balcony. approval of the variance does not negatively impacted impact adjacent buildings as we proposed on the north side, and provide a signed setback on the southside south side to mitigate the request of the extension. in this particular project, the specific context of a private lot containing a sidewalk and half of the street was not anticipated by the planning code our buildable envelope is truncated by unusual site conditions, that is the hardship where we are requesting a rear

yard variance. our team is very proud of this project, their communication with our planner, we were involved -- informed that the team was overall impressed with the quality of the design. they had minor comments, and we set aside with them for a couple rounds of revisions. the final version is in front of you today. the project meets, and in many cases, exceeds requirements for ground story visual interest with 50 4% of the lot with featuring planting and glazed façades, better roof ordinance, which combines over 260 square feet of solar ready zones, and planted roofs, are providing -- thank you very much for your time. >> you've 30 seconds. >> okay. we do have a roof deck on this project and it is designed with the new roof deck policies in mind, access is via a rollback skylight. it is limited in size, and provides a setback that the new policy asked for. i am available and happy to answer any questions, and the contractor is also here today.

thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? i have two speaker cards. michelle scott and pat. >> good afternoon, commissioners out in the hallway, we had a discussion with the project sponsor, i'm not sure what he wants to do in here. this is a conditional use hearing. i represent a number of the owners on this private street. it has to show it is in the public's best interest. there was a variance, no impact on variance with my client. the primary and sole issue is to -- is the garage, which is moot removing parking space number 8. this is a private streets that has 13 private, grossly substandard spaces, and the idea

is to continue this case so we can work out a deal with the neighbor so that he can be assured that he has parking with all the neighbors agreeing to give him the space in front. thereby, he doesn't have to remove probably two spaces, not just one, to provide one private space. and i believe that if we can continue this case for two weeks , we could broker some support of his project, and allow him to move forward with all the other city agencies. this is a private street that has been there for 80 years. it has worked out a relationship in san francisco. it is amazing that for almost 50 years, there has been agreement on how to park on this street. if there can be sometime given, maybe we can work out a continuance of how do these 11 properties share these 13 spaces

, because it is a conditional use, they have to meet some standards, and i question how they can meet standards in terms of affecting parking in an entire neighborhood by this project. on item eight of conditional use findings, not affecting traffic, because there is an agreement on how to do these 13 spaces now, without giving us the time to work out a deal, you may find all 13 blow up, and you have 13 more cars on the public street down the block. this street, the total width is 26 feet wide. that is -- you take out the two sidewalks, you are down to 16 feet. with the current agreement of parking only on the west side, there is fire access. if there is a continuance, we can work this out. if not, we will probably have a

situation where all these spaces go away. you will have 13 more people parking down the block on a public street. i also question policy 11, community through architectural design. give us a time to make this work out. give us two weeks so we can come up with the design, otherwise, i fear we are going to have 13 parking spaces lost. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is michelle scott. i am an attorney and they represent some of the owners. i also have the pleasure of working with mr. bosco which, and i agree with his sentiment that we should continue this if possible so that we can see if we can come to some sort of agreement with the owner.

i am optimistic, given the way our conversations were heading out in the hall that there might be some of the solution that can be reached, but -- yes, i am also in favor of continuing this , but with my time today, i just wanted to touch upon the parking issue, which is my primary purpose in speaking today. as was mentioned, it is an unusual street, with an unusual history. it is very narrow, and it is a private street. owned by all of the owners who live there. with their property lines extending into the very center of that shared street. it now consists of 11 buildings or 22 units. there are 13 designated parking spots, and currently, the owners who live on the street, they have been operating almost like owners of a common interest

development. there is no h.o.a., with that is how they have been existing in operating for the last 40 plus years. they all share these 13 spaces. the way the parking is now, it is a first come first served basis. whoever arrives first can select whatever spot they want and park there. it has been that way for decades , literally. and those spaces were first marked about 20 years ago. about six to seven years ago, there was an ongoing parking dispute between the owners. some people felt like they were not being given as ample an opportunity to utilize the spaces. somewhere parking three cars, some were not able to park any, so in an effort to combat these issues, they all sat down together, had a meeting, and decided they would issue 22 passes, 22 parking passes, and each of those 11 buildings would get two. each building has two parking spaces, they use him on a

first-come first serve basis, and that is how it's been, that is the agreement that was reached. so the way the project is designed currently, there is a garage that is being proposed, and that garage will essentially privatize and take away the shared parking space number 8. so if that is allowed to proceed , essentially the owner of the terrace is benefiting to the detriment of the entire street, and they will be losing viable parking. simply put, parking is a finite, fragile resource. the spaces are small, they are unusually small, the street is small, there's a delicate balance -- and elegant a delicate balance that must be preserved. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item. come on up. >> hello, commissioners. i think i have worked with one

of you in the same office. my name is lorraine, i know it is late in the day and i am probably the last speaker. i am an immediate owner -- neighbor and owner, and i just want to say that overall, i am supportive of the project, particularly increasing the number of units in the building height as san francisco has a serious housing crisis, and it is something that i would one day like to do myself with my building. however, i oppose the 2-foot variance, and it's in exception to the planning code because it will directly affect natural light into the rear of my bedroom window, which is literally inches away from the shared property line, as well as , the living room and bedrooms of the three units behind the area, as a few people have said,

it may not sound like much, but over four stories, it will have an impact, especially on the street that is a special situation. it is a private alley, it is congested. that is primarily because all buildings extend to the midline of the private street, and historically, the 45% minimum rear yard depth -- the 45 minimum rear yard depth required by the planning code has been interpreted on the streets to be measured from the middle of the street to the rear of each property line, so what that means is there is less green space than other parts of san francisco, it is much more dense , so for the terrace, 45, even before considering the variance, the rear yard cancel

late -- calculation was done any depth of 68 feet, as opposed to 55 from the front of the façade, which would be much more difficult in other parts of san francisco. so, if there are any other variances on the street that i am aware of, they are typically created, they are on extended lots with one and a half that have been created from one and a half lots combined, so they face on two adjacent backyards, not on onto buildings, again, they don't obstruct the natural light of neighbors. i'm really tired right now. i came back really late to come back to this meeting. let's say, so, light and air are

protected in san francisco, and a variance is an exception to the san francisco planning code. >> thank you, your time is up. >> sorry. >> you get three minutes. >> any variance will have no immediate benefit to the neighbors, and it will take wait natural light and green space. >> thank you. you get three minutes. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you for taking the time i live directly across from 45. i have lived there since 2009. in december of last year, my wife and i bought number 50. we own both the property straight across from this development property. it is a harmonious street. it is a little bit more of a commentary on what is happening in san francisco. there is a economic and social diversity of age. the small property has had people of color and everybody

gets along really well, so it is quite a nice neighborhood. what -- the reason we want more time is because our property extends into the street, and in order to put a garage, one would have to drive across our property back into the the new garage that is. when we bought number 50 in december of last year, our real estate agent said that the property -- the parking like that we have our property, you know, will about half an dollars on the property that i have and having somebody come and absorb -- to put a garage in, and then possibly take more then a spot in order to get vehicles to move into that garage would very negatively affect our property values and our ownership, so i agree that taking more time to work this out with the neighborhood would be beneficial

to all of us.

it is like an old school. i am sad to change it. there is so much harmony on the street. to be dis-harmony, is disheartening. the fact this house is going up, it is really changing the texture of the street. it has a mediterranean feel. now it is becoming a large scale project that feels quite different. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i am james carter. my wife and i own 4348 culebra

terrace. we moved there in the late 1990s. in the decade after that we had a lot of controversy around parking. we wound up getting -- we had threatened litigation between those living off the street who thought they would park on the street and the owners were not willing to go with that. under adverse possession, we wound up persuading the people around us that they could not park on culebra. if they did we could tow their cars. for 20 years or so we have had peace because the people around us have not tried to challenge our arrangement. now with the new owner we scrambled some eggs there. the company that is buying in

now has agreed they will meet with us and our consultants to see if we can workout an exception to avoid adverse possession and other issues. that is why i and most of the owners are very much for a cooperative effort for the next couple weeks to resolve the issues involving parking. thank you. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: there are quite a few issues very, very not heard about. i believe that we may have to continue this because we are unfamiliar to really settle which is a private agreement between those people living on the street to make this work. the question for the commission is the following? this project comes in thin in the description of which

normally would be more description about materials, identification about windows. i am a little bit concerned about the large amount of unit equity. we have a 754 square foot unit and 2755 square foot unit. i would have liked to see a little bit more balance in what we are doing here. this is a project which is definitely falling under the c.u. resolution. it has to be necessary and desirable. since we are indeed in generally in discussions about better equity and balance as we had earlier. i would like that to be perhaps be part of the continuance as well. >> i would like to ask how this add verse possession of parking happens. >> if i can speak specifically to the adverse possession issue, but this is a private street. it is not a public right-of-way.

the street itself is part of the properties that each property owner owns. it sounds like they have a specific arrangement that we are not really aware of in terms of how the properties can be used by other property owners to park their vehicles. to that point, i wanted to get clarification. others can reply as well, just to be clear this is a private street. no one other than property owners can park on the street. >> that's correct. >> you said there are 13 spaces. >> 13 spaces. they are small spaces but there are 13 marked off spaces. >> i think i counted 10 buildings that front directly on the street. do you have any idea google street doesn't go there. you can't digitally walk there.

do you know how many buildings have their own garages? >> three. one at the end of the block is not part of it. they got double parking on chestnut and on this alley. there are a couple. one at the end is not a garage. it is a faux garage. there is an abandoned garage, maybe three. actually four. there is a modern one next to the project. apparently that has never had a car in it. that is why they park on the street like everybody else. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i move to continue this until two weeks. i want to make sure. with the direction of the commission is to have more unit density equity. it might take more than two weeks.

it will involve redesign of the project. i want to make sure there is an understanding by the project sponsor. the commission is asking for redesign of the units. >> yes. >> good evening. so we are clear. you are asking for greater unit equity between the units. >> preferring one-to-one. >> you are also asking for compromise on parking as well? >> yes and i want to add excessive glazing in the back, like one big window. scale it back a little. >> what about -- you will get to it. what about the variance, how does that affect if we go back to redesign? >> that is up to the ca. >> on the compromise, i mean they are proposing one parking

space and one garage door. i would be curious what we know about compromise they can have a parking garage or they can't. i am not sure of the compromise situation in this situation. regarding the variance it is important to note they are proposing two feet two inches deeper than the code lets them go. however, they could do a refaçade that met that requirement with two bay windows going out three feet and be fairly wide. the math would be close. you may get more mass with the bay windows. i feel like the rear yard variance is not significant. it is similar in terms of the mass they would get with the bay windows anyway. i don't think the discussion here on unit parity or parking would affect the mass in

question in the rear. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: the question is that the ad joining maybes are concerned about privacy with those two feet. the depiction of the add joining buildings is not clear enough to understand how windows two feet could affect looking back at unit unit. that is a little unclear. i would like to see sensitivity towards privacy in the rear as well, and perhaps slightly better depiction on what it does with add joining buildings relative to where windows are and what types of rooms would be affected. perhaps the neighbor that spoke about it could give explanation when the neighbors rediscuss changes to the building.

the department has to take the design review again. there is a second cycle on quite a few issue as here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i would prefer to have housing over parking. this may be a special special situation with two units and two cars. there may not be enough spaces on the street to allow two more cars. >> space number 8 in front of this is proposed to be removed for a private car. what is proposed is arrangement that space 8 is deeded to him. therefore we don't need to take the parking spice off the street and don't have to build the house and garage. >> that would be great if we could have housing versus parking spaces in the house. great. >> second.

july 18th. >> may i propose something other than july 18th. we have a full calendar that day. haven't we continued three items to that day. >> it was a light calendar there was to be a joint hearing on that day that got moved. with the pac. joking, it is lake. >> okay fine. >> there is a motion seconded to continue this matter with direction from commission to july 18th. (roll call). so moved commissioners. >> public hearing and continue the variance hearing to july 18th. >> very good. >> that is it. >> we are adjourned. better.

san francisco department of environment is a place where climate hits the street. we know that we don't have all the answers. we need to support our local champions, our local community to find creative solutions and innovations that help us get to zero waste. >> zero waste is sending nothing

to landfill or incineration, using reuse and recovery and prevention as ways to achieve zero waste. the grant program is a grant program specifically for nonprofits in san francisco to divert material from landfill. it's important to find the san francisco produce market because there's a lot of edible food that can be diverted and they need positions to capture that food and focus on food recovery. >> san francisco produce market is a resource that connects farmers and their produce with businesses in the bay area. i think it's a basic human right to have access to healthy foods, and all of this food here is available. it's a matter of creating the infrastructure, creating jobs,

and the system whereby none of this goes to waste. since the beginning of our program in july 2016 to date, we've donated over 1 million pounds of produce to our community partners, and that's resulted in over 900,000 meals to people in our community, which we're very proud of. >> carolyn at the san francisco produce market texts with old produce that's available. the produce is always excellent. we get things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, bell peppers. everything that we use is nice and fresh, so when our clients get it, they really enjoy it, and it's important to me to feel good about what i do, and working in programs such as this really provides that for me. it's helping people.

that's what it's really about, and i really enjoy that. >> the work at the produce market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the people, nothing gets better than

my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been

the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that.

i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in

the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the result.

once in a while you heard it had an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8

years. i handled homicides and suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i may know a loved one coming from

the back way or a loved one seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the medical examiners office. whawhat do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the a with the enou- with the administrative and the families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband

who grumbled and went back to sleep. this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be. >> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't hollywood, we are real world.

yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job. if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for the city of san francisco. off c

devices because they could off c interfere with the equipment in the room. [pledge of allegiance]