there's a set of rules and a set of codes that we've been working towards and i'm not asking for any exemptions or variances or breaking the code. i'm just trying to do what's right. i'm a little shocked because we did talk about 3 feet for the longest time and we did talk about -- there's so many nuances that i've approached. and now for someone asking for more than what we've talked about for the last six months is really hard to understand. i don't think we'll ever get to a point where everyone's happy, but i think what i've offered is something that i think is fair to everyone. this is -- this is a zone -- this site is zoned for seven units. there's this height limit. san francisco has the topography it has. i was born and raised here. i lived up on beacon street. i know what san francisco's all about. we build here, we try to do it

with scale we try to do it with material. you know, we try to work with the site lines as best as we can. and like i said i even offered, and this is noted somewhere that we would work with the neighbors to enhance the greenery in our back yard so that we can obscure as much as that base of the building as possible. i mean this is a sloped site. there's nothing that -- i can't change the topography of the land. i think this is a really good solution. i think it's fair, and i hope that you could see that we worked very hard for the last two-plus years on trying to get this to this point, so i appreciate your time. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, i think the slope of the hill is extraordinary and exceptional here in the city. i know when i worked on market and okaytivectavio this is what

happened. i completely respect your work. i know you're doing what the project sponsors are asking you to do. the one thing that's interesting to me just as i talked with the project sponsor's team this week and we were looking at the project set back -- the set back from the property line and the set back from the rear that i hadn't really looked at and just got clued in we've got each -- you have 2,056 spaces -- 1,056 square feet on b-2, and 47 on b-1. 893 square feet perunit that's parking and storage. and the height of the building in the back is causing the issue so that's really where i want to focus is -- you know i

don't think the units are exceptionally large. they're actually coming in at the average of a flat in isk san franciscoisk -- in san francisco, so i'm okay with it. i really want to focus on the need for that additional 900 square feet perunit between storage and parking. if you look at b-1, and the parking spaces and all the different other space in the -- in that -- on that floor i think they're -- there's enough room for a storage including on b-1, which hopefully will just be b if other commissioners agree, for commission ornaments and things like that, you have closets for things you use every day. the storage downs i honestly -- down stairs i honestly believe for things you use once a year, you're going to be able to create on b-1. you don't need to offer an additional 900 commissioned

space perunit, which i think is excessive. the question i have for mr. winslow is open space requirement, this is code compliant buildings, so is there any open space requirement, you know, rm 1? >> i'm going to defer to chris towns, the current code inspector on this project. >> the answer is yes there is an open space requirement perunit in this district. 100 square feet if it's private 133 square feet perunit if it's common. >> commissioner richards: okay. the back yard itself doesn't qualify. >> it also qualifies. >> commissioner richards: but, if there was no roof deck would the back yard in and of itself qualify for the roof space requirement? zbh i'd have to check that. >> commissioner richards: is there a pattern of roof decks in the neighborhood?

>> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner richards: i'd probably focus on the roof deck because it is towering over everybody. i don't think the backward's that usable at a doughertydownward slope, but i think we have to look at the trade offs between the b-2, b-1 issue that i just raised. >> seven units, seven maximum -- minimum requirement of one perunit. they're proposing seven units, so they're doing the one perunit. they're allowed up to 150% of that amount, so they could go up to 11, so they're doing four less than what's required. >> commissioner richards: and b-1 would not be a great living space. i think the height of the

garage is causing me anxiety for the folks on the west. i think there could be a solution where they don't really have to change too much but you could actually get rid of a floor that's really not for living at all. it's just storage. >> vice president melgar: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i'd actually love to invite the project sponsor to comment on that the thinking behind it. >> yeah. it's more of a technical thing. so we've started the ramp at the lowest part of the site because the site kind of slopes from east to west. >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the mic. >> oh, yeah. it flows east to west, so we started with the ramp. the problem with what you're saying, i would have to take that ramp further further down to drop everything. >> commissioner richards: on you about a -- because what we've seen on other projects you drive your car, it's an

elevator, and you go down. you don't need a ramp you just need enough room for that elevationor to take them down to the floor. they're putting elevators in tiny homes these days so here's a seven-unit building you might be able to do that. >> we're doing that on much much bigger projects and a single-family home the owner can actually do that because they're responsible for themselves. on a larger project which we do downtown we use elevators, but that's with a valet. the owner would never get in that car and do it. the problem i have here is because it's a seven unit project, they would have to valet that elevator unless it's a single-family home. >> commissioner richards: that's an osha requirement unless it's a single-family home.

>> if it's a single-family home, can you do it -- you can do it but if it's a multifamily home, you can't do it. i'm looking at the topography on the site, to see the least amount possible to go down. like i said this is a family -- it's kbaered towards family -- geared towards storage space. imagine you have a single-family home like a lot of these people do. they have a storage, they have car, they have storage in their garage and then, they have their home. this is similar but this is just seven of them. >> commissioner richards: makes sense. i guess my question for mr. -- i'm having a brain malfunction -- and congratulations on your new role. i think we're going to be seeing you more in this position that you're now the d.r. guy. okay. great. just tap me on the way out.

>> the ides of march. >> commissioner richards: this wedding cake terracing is this common? it looks like the inside of a portland hotel to me? what's sculpting look like to you. >> our first comments were in response to the scale of the building at the back and they were generic, take your best stab at respecting both the topography of the site as well as the scale at that midblock condition. i -- i think, you know significantly sculpting the building and that can take many and any forms right, without being prescriptive. when it came back the second time, after the d.r. was applied for, we did get specific with respect to the

terracing of the upper most floor and the dplengs that takes height off the top but also respects -- if you look next door to the building on the east it has a top floor that's considerably set back to the rear wall. so that was kind of the cue that we were looking at in being more prescriptive on that second d.r. review. so we aren't looking at the tower of babylon. >> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit not understanding what an additional 2 feet would do because the other buildings are 50 feet away in the back. >> i did a little research on that. if you look at the plan of those buildings adjacent to us on the east they are massive. they're twice as wide as our lots and the reason that these developers chose to pull those

buildings back on the edges is so that they can actually get light and air to the middle of those buildings. we don't have that condition. we have back yards on one side so the 3 feet is what we're offering in order to get that planning strip. it also allows us to get windows along that side. but the reason that 5 feet is not a -- it's not a zoning thing that anybody created it's induced by the developers -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so you agree to 3 feet? >> i totally do. >> commissioner richards: okay. that was number one on their ask. number two you're willing to do 13 feet? >> 13. i just felt that rdat didn't recognize the west side at all. didn't ask us to most the west side at all. i think from a planning standpoint doing in from both sides. they want something from the

west these guys want something from the top. the top is pretty far below here. even at 10 feet back you're barely going to see this thing. 13 is fair, and i would set back the handrail, as well so that that stays back another 3 feet so it doesn't come to the edge to reduce that richard. >> commissioner richards: and number three we ask -- >> yes i did that. >> commissioner richards: great. and then four, they asked for two more feet on the guardrails on the decks. instead of three, they want five. that doesn't do that much to your project. >> that doesn't do too much. >> commissioner richards: so it looks like you'd agree. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: include neighbors in the process of appropriate planning agreed. so i think you've agreed to the six of the seven. the 13 feet is the 20 feet is the big difference, and it

looks like you've kind of gone halfway with the 3 feet and the 13 feet. i'm satisfied that this should work. >> it's going to look good. >> commissioner richards: i'll let commissioner koppel make a motion motion. >> commissioner koppel: i'll make a motion to take d.r. with the stated conditions that commissioner richards just stated. >> clerk: 13 feet from which side? >> commissioner richards: from the back of the property. >> from the rear wall. >> right. instead of ten, it's 13. >> commissioner richards: 3 feet set back on the property top floor to third floor, set back additional 2 feet maintain an indentation in the original zieb facade. on the -- design facade. on the third floor 5'6".

>> no. >> commissioner richards: so this would be on the fourth floor. >> the third floor doesn't set back. >> commissioner richards: okay. so then it would be the fourth floor. >> no the fourth floor goes back 13'6". >> commissioner richards: that's what i -- decks removed from the fourth floor, parapet on the entire fourth floor belowered to a curb and include neighbors in the appropriate selection process of planning, so -- >> yes. >> commissioner richards: do i hear a second? >> vice president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you commissioners. so basically we are taking d.r. and approving this project with modifications pursuant to the ask submitted by the d.r.

requesters accepting items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, not 6. >> commissioner richards: right. >> clerk: and number two gets amended to eliminate the third floor set back ask reducing the second floor set back to 13'6". very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 20 was withdrawn, so we are on item 21 for case number 2013.0847 d.r.p. at 1503 francisco street. please note on may 24, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to july 19, 2018 by a vote of 6-0 and on july 19, 2018, without hearing, you continued it to today's date. commissioner richards, you were not present on that first hearing, and if you could

acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous material and hearing. >> commissioner richards: i have. >> clerk: thank you. as this is the second time we are hearing this matter, the d.r. requester will be provided with a three minute presentation, and the project sponsor will be provided with a three minute presentation. all public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review for a building permit for a vertical addition interior remodel and revised facade design at 1503 francisco street. as the commission secretary said, the item was heard before this commission on may 24. following public comment and discussion, the item was continued with a request by the commissioners with a project sponsor work with the concerned neighbors to address revisions primarily relating to the exterior design of the project. the subject building is located at the southwest corner of the

intersection of francisco and octavia streets and the immediate area is characterized by a mix of single and multifamily housing that range in height from three to four stories. the project was reviewed by environmental staff and determined to be categorically exempt from further ceqa review. the subject building is not a you historic resource nor is it located within an eligible historic district. the request was filed by the owners of 1409 francisco street. they've reity they've reiterated that the revised proposals at this time may i approach tanz unusual circumstances that the communal space of the ground story may not be used as such, that the roof decks are unnecessary and not typical of the neighborhood and that the

units should have independent street access. the revised scope of work includes the same internal layout as the original design appropriatesal with two parking spaces and a shared common space at the ground floor, two existing one bedroom units at the second floor, and existing residential units at the third and fourth floor with roof deck access at the roof and fourth floor levels. the existing footprint of the building would not be expanded. this project sponsor did significantly revise the exterior design based on the feedback from the commission and concerns brought up by the neighbors at the prior public hearing regarding the prior contrary design. the newly proposed design reduces glazing from 40% of the exterior shell to 26 with proportions to better relate to the finestrations of the upper

site and it proposes to change the original cast concrete ridge face to a kol too sooned brick finish to soften the pedestrian experience of the building. the residential design advisory team reviewed the revised proposal and found the design to be compatible in design to the surrounding neighborhood. rdat noted that the windows are compatible in size, scale, and proportion with the surrounding buildings. the context exhibits restrained building articulation that is typically focused on window detailing and a delainiation of the entry and base and that this design articulates the base with a compatible material in the entry with a material differentiation in high recess. the upper roof deck is limited in size and set back from all edges and the rear decabutts a blind wall in the street, therefore presenting no privacy impacts. the brick at the --

[inaudible] >> -- with other ground level treatments. the project has been reviewed for compliance with section 317 and was determined not to qualify as a de facto demolition or a unit merger. the area of the existing units at the second floor would not be significantly modified. the project would retain the existing three units and staff verified with the rent board and office of short-term rentals that there are no eviction evictions at the property. all three units feature independent accessing kitchens and were the property owner to seek a unit mer jerge at a later date, they would be required to file for

conditional use for the loss of a unit to be heard before this body. at the time of the prior hearing, staff had received 25 letters of support and ten letters in opposition to the proposal. since the revised project was presented to neighbors, staff has received two e-mails in support including the neighbors to the immediate east with whose property would most be directly impacted by the roof deck,s awell as three letters and e-mails and a petition with 20 signatures, including those of the d.r. requesters and neighbor who's had submitted letters. the department -- [inaudible] >> -- and presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i'm available for questions. thank you. medical melg we will

. >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requester. five minutes -- >> clerk: three minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: well let's fix that. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's kristina mcnair and my sister and i are owners are property across from the project. our family legacy has been tied to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing we received an additional over 34 additional signatures including the san francisco tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing on several occasions,

i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team and now three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about the project regarding roof decks unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks three or 4% of the buildings in this neighborhood have roof decks, and there's been strong out cry about roof decks, both in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. there's a blind -- the next -- there is windows on the -- noted there's a blind wall in the report. it actually has windows. one solution to the unit mergers is to provide an open

air lobby, which creates a connection to the street and -- and creates a more inviting communal feeling in the community. current configuration easily allows the units to be merged on the second floor. you can see this is a closed lobby, and again the -- in the past the department has forced unit interior reconfigurations based on known code compliance -- future code compliance problems. there is a current pattern in the neighborhood and in the city in real estate sales to merge units after sale into single-family home. this is exactly the thing that could happen here. it could use some massing changes on the exterior. it's still -- it was's a very bland simplified feature. the finestration is very

simplistic. i think it has a need for further detailing which has not been provided. thank you very much. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. so this is the second time we're hearing this item so one minute. >> hello. thanks for the time. i'm still opposed to this project. i do appreciate the other side making some changes since we were last in front of the commission. but to me it comes across as a bit of a bare minimum effort and didn't address all of the points that were raised by the -- the insightful discussion that the commission

had after our last hearing. in particular i'm concerned about the motion of a single-family home really changing kind of the dynamic of our neighborhood, and most particularly the roof decks. there's also -- the same owners purchased the residence next door and there's a plan to have a roof deck on that one as well, so we're looking at putting three roof decks in a very tight area in a pretty much over night. the city has new guidelines on roof decks of which there's three or four points that are in violation. >> clerk: thank you sir. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> hi. pam davis. i am a neighbor down at 1567 francisco, and i want to also thank them for redesigning some of the exterior. my concerns previously were

regarding the glazing. that does appear to have been addressed significantly. my only remaining concern relates to the rear deck. if you look at this photo you can see this is francisco street where you see the vehicles. and then, the rear deck that's being proposed is actually what would be visible as a side deck from the street, and my concern is living just a few doors down from here the noise that is generated from a side deck that is exposed and as open as this area would be is very concerning to me. so that is the feature that remains in this that i specifically have concerns regarding. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm margin requalley. i'm a 23 year resident in the marina homeowner for the last 14 years across the street from

the project. i'm concerned about the impact of the project on the nature of the neighborhood. in particular there have been a lot of contradictions from the owner about what the intentions are for this building. originally it was talked about as being a single-family home. i think you've heard we have continued concern with the design seeming that that's still a likely intention in the future. secondly it's been stated as using it for corporate housing, again, not keeping with the long-term residential nature of the neighborhood. at this point there have not been any tenants in the units, so there really hasn't been any impact directly, but between 1503 francisco, this project and 3255, which the owner also owns next door, four of the five units have been vacant. thank you. >> vice president melgar:

thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening. philip meza and i would echo the comments made by my neighbors earlier tonight, and i would also specify that we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home. overhead, please. we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home and this is magnified that we now have concerns about the property becoming a single-family compound because the property at 3255 octavia received permission to in-fill the light well between the two properties. so i don't know what further evidence you need that this is going to become a single-family home and a single-family compound. thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners.

instead of echoing the same points that everybody has raised which i wholeheartedly agree in one minute that i have or less i just want to point out to the arrogance of power. in this case mr. minaj is trying to buy the support of neighbors by purchasing the properties, the surrounding building. i have no idea if the intent is to keep purchasing and keep purchasing the support of neighbors, but i just wanted to point out to you that residential mr. murphy here overhead please as you can see, he purchased mr. murphy's -- mr. patrick murphy's how's next door and this is the same -- house next door and this is the same house that everybody's pointing is going to be another roof deck on it. i'm just pointing out this is just not right. this arrogance of power is not right and should not be permitted. just, you know, please you

know like -- okay. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners mark hermann, i live directly across the street from this project. this project started five years ago with a well documented attempt to use the property as a single-family home. we saw it from 2013 a failed dwelling unit merger and the project sponsor's own statement at the last hearing. in the last five years, we saw this building being used at best as a corporate rental today we have an unchanged floor plan screaming for legal. tomorrow we have the project sponsor's vacant two unit building next door with proposed remodel details, very suggestive of future unit accommodation. if this project isn't stopped now, i hope you've seen the

future from similar projects in other neighborhoods where the planning department is mocked neighbored are thumbed, and units in the neighborhood are being marketed and sold at single-family homes. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. if there are no more comments in support of the d.r. requester, we will now use the project sponsor. >> thank you. last we met, we came with a code compliant project, full support of planning and 25 letters of support. a small group of opponents led my kristina mcnair met us by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us and more has come tonight because as i've learned through this neighborhood kristina has a deeply rooted grudge with the city and their planning process. kristina received four citations from the city which

she's fought for more than three years. she should not be policing the neighborhood as she thumbed her knows not once but four times to this very process. mark hermann told me when i knocked on his door that his neighbor reported him for a deck he was building illegally in his garden. we were unprepared and remain taken aback by the lies and tactics that are being invoked by the pretense of architecture design. kristina remarks at the may 24 hearing were not her own words with you rather read from a letter of constance. what kristina didn't tell you is that constance is not within the 311 notification area. her unit is in escrow as we speak. kristina also didn't tell you that she herself empties parts of her building in the last year there by adding to the

density of our neighborhood and adding average rents. mark hermann likes to have conversations here at the neighborhood and at the hearing, highlighting my wife's native origins, the size of her family and i see had deep concern about using the building to how's her family memory -- house her family and not tenants. these are not acts nor statements of people endeavoring to act with us in good faith. they have not asked us to meet. we have continually invited them to meet us. in fact just two days ago we accepted supervisor's kathrin stefani's offer to mediate a discussion between the principals and kristina and mark, like other times, rejected the invite.

we don't want the good feeling of the neighborhood to be washed away with a few bad apples, so weconcrete was replaced with stucco wood brick, to soften all materials widely used in the neighborhood. windows were decreased from 10 foot in height to 8.5 feet. the overall circumstance was decreased from -- >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> window patterns -- >> vice president melgar: your time is up. sorry, you have two-minute rebutt al. >> clerk: no not on the second time. >> vice president melgar: okay. are there any commenters in support of the project sponsor. come on up. >> thank you. how much time do i have? >> clerk: i have a minute. >> my name's patrick murphy. i live at 1526 francisco

street directly across the street from the project. born and raised in san francisco. been on the street for 26 years. i'm very much in support of the project. my view is affected more than anybody anybody else's and that's the true view here. i think families should be allowed to expand existing units without getting rid of any existing tenants as many of these other people have. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so -- so we don't have a rebuttal. commissioners? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: just one question fore the project sponsor. what do you have planned for the basement?

>> there is no basement. >> commissioner koppel: there's a basement in the drawings. >> there's no basement. >> commissioner koppel: just saying drawing a-2 had a basement plan. >> this is common space to that the building occupants can access the guard where my wife likes to guard so it's for the benefit of everyone in the building. >> vice president melgar: is that -- is that it commissioner? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think the design's improved much over what it was before. i like the idea that the two middle units are around the same square footage. more power to you for expanding the top. the roof deck is small so i have no issue with that. the only issue i have is the common space in the future becoming a new unit number through with the merger of the two units above so i would like to take d.r. approve the

project with a notice of special restriction to the common space if it were to become a unit in the future it would become a unit as an a.d.u. >> vice president melgar: is that a motion? >> commissioner richards: it's a motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the condition that if the common space becomes livable that it become an a.d.u. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

5-0. adjourn. [ gavel ]

>> for the first time in nearly two decades fishers have been granted the legal right to sell fish directly to the package right off their boat -- to the public right off their boats in san francisco. it's not only helping local fishers to stay afloat but it's evoking the spirit of the wharf by resurfacing the traditional methods of selling fish.

but how is it regulated? and what does it take for a boat to be transported into a floating fish market? find out as we hop on board on this episode of "what's next sf." (♪) we're here with the owner and the captain of the vessel pioneer. it's no coincidence that your boat is called the pioneer because it's doing just that. it's the first boat in san francisco to sell fish directly from the boat. how did you establish your boat into such a floating fish market? >> well you know, i always thought that it would be nice to be able to provide fresh fish to the locals because most of the fish markets, you would have to do a large amount of volume in order to bring in enough fish to cover the overhead. when you start selling to the public that volume is much less so it makes it hard to make enough money. so being able to do this is really -- it's a big positive

thing i think for the entire community. >> a very positive thing. as a third-generation fisherman joe as his friends call him has been trawling the california waters for sustainably caught seafood since an early age. since obtaining a permit to sell fish directly to the public he is able to serve fish at an affordable price. >> right now we're just selling what a lot of the markets like flat fish and rock fish and what the public likes. so we have been working for many, many years and putting cameras in them. there's the ability to short fish and we have panels that we open and close so we target the different species of fish by adjusting the net. and then not only that but then the net sort out the sizes which is really important. >> joe brings in a lot of fish, around 20000 pounds per fishing trip to be exact. >> we had one day one time that we sold almost 18000 pounds. >> it's incredible. >> i know, it's hard to imagine. >> but this wasn't always the case for joe. >> the markets that we have left

in california they're few and far between and they really are restrictive. they'll let you fish for a couple months and shut you down. a lot of times it's rough weather and if you can't make your delivery you will lose your rotation. that's why there's hardly any boats left in california because of the market challenges. my boat was often sitting over here at the dock for years and i couldn't do anything with it because we had no market. the ability to go catch fish is fine, i had the permits but you couldn't take them off your boat. >> that was until the port commission of san francisco rallied behind them and voted unanimously to approve a pilot program to allow the fish to be sold directly to consumers right off their boats. >> the purpose of the program is to allow commercial fishers to sell their fish directly from their boats to the end consumer in a safe and orderly manner for the benefit of the overall fishing community at the port of san francisco. we have limited the program to

certain types of fish such as salmon, halibut tuna and rock fish. crab is restricted from this program because we did not want to interfere with the existing crab sales on taylor street and jefferson street. so this is not meant to favor one aspect of the fishing industry more than another. it's to basically to lift up the whole industry together. >> and if joe the program has been doing just that. >> it was almost breathtaking whenever i woke up one morning and i got my federal receiver, my first receivers license in the mail. and that gave me permission to actually take fish off my boat. once we started to be able to sell it opened things up a bit. because now that we have that federal permit and i was able to pepetition the city council and getting permission from san francisco to actually use the dock and to sell fish here it was a big turning point. because we really didn't think or know that we'd get such a

positive response from the public. and so we're getting thousands of people coming down here buying fish every week and so that's pretty cool. they like the fish so much that they take pictures of it when they cook it and they send us all of these pictures and then they ask us you know constantly for certain types of fish now. and when they come down here the one thing that they say is that they're so amazed that the fish is so fresh they could eat a little bit during the week and it's still fresh all week in the refrigerator. so that's really cool. >> the fish is very fresh and the price is super. i don't think that you can get it anywhere in the bay area. i can see it and i can stir fry it wow you can do anything you want. i just can say this is a good place to shop and you have a good experience. >> this program supports the strategic plan in terms of

engagement, people being connected to the waterfront, and also economic vitality. because it's helping the fishermen to make ends meet. they have no guarantees in their businesses, not like some people and we want to do everything that we can to help them to have a good and thriving business. >> how does it feel to be able to sell your fish locally kind of in the traditional way like your grandfather probably did? >> when i was a kid and i used to work in my dad's fish market a lot of the markets that we sell to now are second and third and fourth generation markets. so i remember as a kid putting their tags on the boxes of fish that we shipped out of monterey and ship down to l.a. so it's kind of cool that we're still dealing with the same families. and this is probably about the only way that anyone can really survive in california is to sell your own fish. >> one of the advantages of this program is the department people

that pull in the fish, they can find out where they caught it and find out more about the fisherman and that adds to their experience. the feedback from the fishers has been very good and the feedback from the customers have very good. and there's a lot of people coming to the wharf now that might not have done so. in fact there's people that go through the neighboring restaurants that are going to eat fish inside but before they go in they see the action on the dock and they want to kind of look at what's happening on the boat before they go in and they have a meal. so it's generated some conversation down at the wharf and that's a good thing. >> as you can see by the line forming behind me getting ready to buy fish, the pilot program has been a huge success. for more information visit sfsport.com. (♪) (♪)

?oo hi, i'm holly lee. i love cooking and you are watching quick bites. san francisco is a foodie town. we san franciscoans love our food and desserts are no exceptions. there are places that specialize in any and every dessert your heart desires, from hand made ice cream to organic cakes, artisan chocolate and cupcakes galore, the options are endless. anyone out there with a sweet tooth? then i have a great stop for you. i've been searching high and low for some great cookies and the buzz around town that anthony's are those cookies. with rave reviews like this i have to experience these cookies for myself and see what

the fuss was all about. so let's see. while attending san francisco state university as an accountinging major, anthony's friend jokingly suggested he make cookies to make ends make. with no formal culinary training he opened his own bakery and is now the no. 1 producer of gourmet cookies in the biarea and thank you for joining us on quick bites. how do you feel? >> i feel great. >> so i want to get to the bottom of some very burning questions. why cookies? >> it was a recommendation from a friend. hard to believe that's how it all started. >> why not pies and cakes? what do you have against pies

and cakes, anthony. >> i have nothing against pies and cakes. however, that was the recommendation. >> you were on the road to be an account apblt. >> actually, an engineer. >> even better. and it led to making cookies. >> in delicious ways. >> delicious ways. >> this is where the magic goes down and we're going to be getting to the truth behind cookies and cream. >> this is what is behind cookies and cream. >> where were you when the idea came to your mind. >> i was in my apartment

eating ice cream, cookies and cream ice cream. how much fun, cookies and cream cookies. their cookies and cream is not even -- it took a lot of time a lot of fun. >> a lot of butter. >> a lot, a lot, a lot. but it was one of those things. all right, now behold. you know what that is? >> what is that? >> cookies and cream. >> oh, they are beautiful. >> yes, so we got to get --. >> all right, all right. we treat the cookies like wine tasting. i don't ever want anybody to bite into a cookie

and not get what they want to get. we're training staff because they can look at the cookie and tell if it's wrong. >> oh, here we go. >> you smell it and then you taste it, clean the plat palate with the milk. >> i could be a professional painter because i know how to do this. >> i can tell that it's a really nice shell, that nice crunch. >> but inside. >> oh, my god. so you are going to -- cheat a little bit. i had to give you a heads up on that. >> what's happening tomorrow? these cookies, there's a lot of love in these cookies. i don't know how else to say it. it really just makes me so happy. man, you bake a mean cookie, anthony.

>> i know. people really know if they are getting something made with love. >> aww >> you know, you can't fool people. they know if you are taking shortcuts here and there. they can eat something and tell the care that went into it. they get what they expect. >> uh-huh. >> system development and things like that. >> sounds so technical. >> i'm an engineer. >> that's right, that's right. cookies are so good, drove all other thoughts out of my head. thank you for taking time out it talk to us about what you do and the love with which you do it. we appreciate your time here on quick bites.

i hope you've enjoyed our delicious tale of defendant 93 and dessert. as for me, my search is over. those reviews did not lie. in fact i'm thinking of one of my very own. some things you just have it experience for yourself. to learn more about anthony's cookies, visit him on the web at anthoniescookies.com. if you want to watch some of our other episodes at sfquickbites/tumbler.com. see >> we broke ground in

december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it

was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in

this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here.

[pledge of allegiance] >> clerk: commissioner mazzucco i'd like to call roll. >> commissioner mazzucco: please do. [roll call] >> clerk: commissioner mazzucco, you have