access. staff does not recommend a side yard for the purposes of emergency access as the window does not now domapply with the code -- window does not comply should is five foot set back be provided. the emergency path of access cannot cross another's property line. with this the staff recommends approval of the project as revised in the exhibit by the project sponsor. this concludes my presentation. i am here to answer questions. >> we have heard this item before. we will limit the d.r. requesters comments to three minutes. >> i am hark christian son, vice president of the triangle

neighborhood association. i want to give my three minutes to sandra lopez, the person who lives at 218 head as well as rogers who drew the drawings that you have. i would like to give my time. can i make one quick comment. we have not been able to talk to the property owners. it is very disappointing. there are issues to be dissolved. ir want to be on record that we want to talk to the property owners. i relinquish my three minutes. >> i am sandra lopez. i am a owner and the next door

neighbor to 216 head street. if i had the money and millions of dollars people have to rebuild my property, i would do it, but this is the house. if they put this house in the neighborhood. all i am asking is to keep the setback that i have had for the last 30 years which i have a picture right here. and the two windows where i get the only light and air to my bedroom and to my bathroom. if i don't have air and light, you know, that would create a lot of mold. the only thing i am concerned about. we have the same problems.

they are building these big buildings which is not a residence. they are going to have all of these rooms. i don't think this is a for a family. they are doing the same they did with the next two properties where they rented to a lot of people that create a lot of problems in the neighborhood. so far the owners don't even comply with the minimum of maintaining the property. my property continues to be flooded. we told them about it. they haven't done anything about removing the dirt or having a proper drainage there. i am really concerned if they are going to build this huge property there how is this going to keep with regulations. i am begging here that if nothing is done i am allowed to have a setback as i have had for

the last 30-days so i have a place to go. thank you. >> you will have one minute for rebuttal. >> go ahead. there is no rebuttal. >> hello, i am glenn rogers landscape architect. when the staff was discussing the project they mentioned one window. there are two windows. they requested a plan of the second story floor. we can show you indoors of de dale a the bathroom, detail b the bedroom.

the bathroom is back farther into the house and the discussion that was being entertained last time we were here was a three foot breezeway from the windows all the way to the backyard. we were looking forward to that decision happening. that being said, i wanted to show you again the picture. >> your time is up. >> ms. lopez also showed us that picture. we got it. thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> i am appearing on behalf of the property owner regarding the

new building at 216 head street. we thank the planner for the preparation of the summary and staff recommendation. the land survey was complete confirming the property line boundaries for the subject property. no record of side set back easements found. we found no clear building permit history to document the legal installation of property line bedroom window or current size and modern design. overhead projector, please. over the years from 1976 to 1990, it shows 216 head street was a much larger building. it obstructed to the building wall. the property line windows discussed were not original to the construction of the building. regardless of those

circumstances we do being neighborly want to offer a modified design which would address the eve of the roof on 218 over hanging onto the owner's property by putting in a one foot set back between 218 and 216 to accommodate the roof eves. in addition as staff discussed to accommodate the bedroom window and light well measuring 3 by 6. staff asked for the complete egress of other portions of the property to see what else might become -- accommodated. >> they could see the 18 has a number of windows in the rear and alongside of the property it is three bedrooms with two baths

with one bedroom and bracelet at ground level which -- one bedroom and bath at the ground level which is currently larger than discussed by the property owner originally. our position is for the light well to be recognized for the bedroom window. however the property owner is not accepting of having any emergency egress on to the set back on to his property. the architect had an injury is not able to be here. >> any public comment in support of the project sponsor? i should have called you for public comment. >> i am steven hidey.

there is very little addressing of an original complaint we made about a pile of dirt that could be easily removed, and i believe it is the responsibility of the owner. we requested it from the beginning. it would not amount to a lot of time and money. yet these people are coming in as interlopers to violate every rule in the book to do this to one person that lived there 30 years. another one lived in the neighborhood for 10 years. this is just absolutely inexcusable. the inattention these people are giving to the simple request. that is all i have to say. >> thank you. any other public comment.

okay. thank you. public comment is now closed. commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: can i ask the project sponsor a question? if you were to extend that light well to capture the bathroom window also how long would you have to extend it to the back of your property? >> as i said the architect isn't here at the moment. however, as you can see. >> you are three bicycle by 6 n. >> this is an interior. >> speak into the microphone. >> unlike the corner lot.

this is aninterior parcel. any extraction of the 25-foot lot would be challenging. >> i don't think it would. judging by the photo. i get it, but it is a fairly busy street. on the other side it is a small house ms. lopez has compared to the home you are building adjacent to it. i would suggest that that light well extend to allow her bathroom window to get the benefit of the light well also and you keep the one foot set back. >> it would be a light well between the back. >> you have to extend it three feet by whatever feet, you know, six more to get her bathroom. >> still a light well between the bathroom and the bedroom?

>> at least to the bathroom. that is what i suggest. do you know why the pile of dirt hasn't been moved? >> according to the property owner, the ditching established alongside each of the interior lots were what they believe was satisfactory for any drainage confirmed by d.b.i. who did go out and review the lot. >> it sounds maybe you can make a good neighborly gesture to have that removed. i would recommend we take dr, extend the light well so it including both the bedroom and bathroom window. >> commissioner moore. >> could you please comment on that request? >> calculation in answer to your first question that light well would at least extend 15 feet

from edge of window to edge of window. however, the basis of the recommendation and not totally ignoring the bathroom window is two-fold. one a window is not a requirement for a bathroom or kitchen. while it is nice to have, it is not a requirement from building code perspective. there is a one foot side set back that is proposed one foot set back in the new building that would allow that bathroom window to continue its use. it wouldn't be flooded with light, but it would function as a window in the commonplace acceptance how a window in a bathroom would function. >> mr. moore. >> commissioner moore: i do not belief setting it back over the

length you are describing is in the interest of either party but perhaps by notching out one additional foot at the bathroom to create another small set back. in the area of the bathroom instead of a foot you will make it two feet. bathrooms do not have to have the full benefit of full light. it is good to have diffuse light. you have a frost window for privacy windows. the additional foot would that be acceptable to you commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: no. originally i thought we should extent that three foot all the way to the end of the building. i am happy keeping it. i think given the relatively modest size home next to the large home they are building, i think it is just the right thing to do to extend the light well. it is not taking up a ton of

square footage. you may not code required it you have to ventilate or live with the consequences of no ventilation in the bathroom. i think it is a neighborly gesture that will not impact the new development in the least. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: the only thing i can support if it needs to be three feet i will support a three foot light well at the bathroom window but not continuous three feet. it is a dead wall. there is no benefit at all except for having weeds and nothing in there. >> i understood that was the motion. >> i was going three by 15. >> my understanding was to have a contiguous light well to accommodate the bedroom and bathroom. >> opting for two separate light wells each three feet deep not

continuous over the remainder of the building. i don't think that is necessary. >> how big is the new proposed structure? >> there is no architect. >> project sponsor, i'm sorry. the garage level with storage is 1400. the building envelope for the resident is 2500. >> total of 39 square feet for single family home. yes. >> i think you ca can accommodae the three by 15 or whatever size is necessary. >> whatever size is necessary to go from the bedroom window to the bathroom window. >> okay. >> there is a motion seconded to

take and extend the light well to accommodate the bedroom and bath windows. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously five to 0. item is the is withdrawn. we are on item 20. 2018-001681drp. 120varennes street. >> good afternoon. i am here to clarify the pronunciation, hopefully. david winslow staff architect. this is a public request for discretionary review of 20180130

to construct a four story vertical addition to an existing three story two family house. the building's historic resource is category a based on the position as contributor to the upper grant historic district. the reason for the dr. the requesters catherine becker of 121varennes and howard wonk to the north 128 are concerned with five issues. tenant displacement and removal of affordable lower unit. two, project height is incompatible with historic significance of the building. height is incompatible with scale of the street. four, blocks light to the neighboring building light well

to the north. five. privacy to the across the street neighbor. public comment. to date the department has just received two letters in opposition which i have just handed out. no letters of support. recommendation in light of the d.r. requesters concerns department has reviewed the prospect with respect to the residential design guidelines. the defendant confirms the scale and masses is compatible with the ad adjacent buildings. specifically, with respect to number one. rent records indicate three units because they saw three addresses on the property in the records. after further research staff was able to determine the existence of only two legal units. staff discussed the voter roles and visited the property to verify the existence of the

third unit at the ground floor and found no evidence of unit or displacement. we don't accept hearsay of others saying there was tenants in the space. they have provided a signed affidavit attesting this is not unauthorized dwelling. two, due to thenariness of varenness alley the proposed set back is adequate to minimize visibility and main tape the scale at the street. it including replacing the windows with wood windows to be consistent with the historic status. the materiality is to be different from the original building. the proposed building is not a demolition as defined in 1005 of the planning code, preservation

part of the code. since it does not result in removal of one more than 25% of the surface area of external walls or 50% of all walls from the function as external or 25% of external walls forming a function as external or internal walls. bear with me. four is important. more than 75% of the building's existing internal structural framework and floor place. number three. 10-foot floor to roof height is not excessive which with the setback in relation to the street is adequate to preserve the sense of the building with the topography as viewed from the street. project complies with the height limit. they are to exceed the height limit. greater set back would not achieve less visibility from the

street. four, addition provides three foot light well at second floor and above to match adjacent neighbor's light well. light well is longer and could accommodate more light to the neighboring building. number five, minimal size front deck and site lines is the upper floor with little impact on privacy t to the across the strt neighbor. this concludes my presentation. i am here to answer questions. >> good afternoon. i am howard wonk.

i have lived at 126-128varennes since 1952. i am aware of the ad adjacent building in the neighborhood. we bring before you a compilation of concerns from neighborhood housing and tenant organizations. the main point of our request for dr. the project encapsulates the planning, zoning and construction irregularities that led to the san francisco loss of rent controlled units, additional affordable multigenerational housing, historic resources and neighborhood diversity. the project i is pro to typicalf combination of mishaps that warrant discretionary review to stop a very bad precedent.

one, brief building history. the subject knowledge is a three -- subject believe is -- subject building contains two flat over basement level zoned rh3 built in 1911 it is a historic building in the grant avenue historic district listed as class a on the pim. three addresses 120, 122 and 124 varennes street include two flats and two apartments. the two bedroom upper was owner occupied for two decades by the chi family. after they moved away the flat was a short term rental for many

years. the two bedroom lower flat at 122 was occupied by the lee family who lived there as tent for 31 years. four tenants chinese seniors and two family members. the proposed project pops up to add a fourth floor to the upper flat and excavates to the lower basement to add a floor for the lower flat. the expansion would result in two larger units of luxury housing in place of the existing two units of affordable rent controlled housing where a family of long-term protected tenants were displaced. second main item. circumventing the laws and avoiding constraint on the building. the building was on sale for

many years without success. real estate ads indicated protected tenants in lower units referring to the lee family. in may of 2016, there was an eviction notice, however, according to the san francisco rent board not completed omi was filed. real estate ads continue to show the existence of the protected tenants. michael bought the building on july 31, 2017. august 29, 2017 filed a prebuyout negotiation disclosure with the sf rent board. november 3, 2017, mr.ker win applied for housing permits through a series of permits through the preventing process which was subsequently suspended

by the zoning administrator because the drawingses were improperly reviewed at the planning counter during the thanksgiving holidays. there are exceptional and extraordinary conditions to this project. the proposed project represents a template for the type of displacement which is spreading in the neighborhood. the extent of demolition appears to gut a historic resource. the amount of dotted lines showing demolition in the interior is extensive and its effect on the structure is unclear and could well lead to a very large demolition. the setback fourth floor addition is inadequate. is that my time? >> you will have time for rebuttal.

thanthank you. iis there any subis there any pn support of the d.r. requester? please come on up. >> hello. it is nice to see you at this hour. i am the chair of the telegraph hill planners and zoning committee. you may have gotten a letter today. we support the ccdc letter and we ask you grant the er and disapprove or require it retain an affordable below market rate unit. how many times do we have to see this? rent controlled affordable housing lost to market rate luxury condos. lanlandlords displacing the 10nants.

with this building. long-term tenants living there 31 years starting in 1986. two members of a protected class both seniors, two relatives, multigenerational family displaced. no record of buyout at rent board. circumventing buyout yards coerced to leave voluntarily after facing long and uncertain construction period. class a resource with major alterations on every floor and expansions upward to a new large living room addition on the roof downward to new garage level master bedroom suite and no increase in the number of those units. how much better would it be if instead of two luxury condos there was an affordable below market rate third unit maybe up to the three full units allowed

by rh3 zones and given the discussion tonight the a.d.u. in the basement. how much better would it be if this project didn't take affordable rent controlled housing off the market and didn't recollect a functional historic building and add a rooftop addition blocking direct sunlight into the house of the person to the north. all of this with history of attempted serial permitting over-the-counter on behalf of this owner and subsequent suspension of building permit application by building administrator for erroneous approvals. take this dr and disapprove or require it retain an affordable market rate unit. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> take thank you.

i want to augment the letter that we submitted yesterday. i wrote that letter and i checked with my staff. let me say we described a pattern of this kind of displacement, eviction by construction, by expansion by development of luxury units. we ran into the tea leaves and described that in the letter. what i discovered is that we actually know this household. we know what happened and we have proof that this process, this building process was directly the cause of the eviction of the tenants in this building. let me describe the household. 86 year-old senior displaced. a teenager born in the unit and the rest of the family lived

there for more than 30 years as previously noted. that household came to us and spoke to our councilors after they received the pre-notice or pre-buyout notice. they consulted with us and they decided they would reject that pre-buyer out they wanted to keep the home and stay in the neighborhood. that is what we understand they told the owner or the owner's attorney. the response by the owners was to issue a letter which i will present here and distributer copies to the commission which proves that this very construction process was the tool by which they displaced the tenants. here is the letter. issued in october b by the

attorney on behalf of mr.ker win. it notes on the first page the eviction lawsuit on your record can make it more difficult for you to obtain future rental housing and adversely affect your credit rating. page 2, further note because of the immense scope of the capital improvement construction project which includes complete structural up great mr.ker win anticipated you will be displaced for a period of at least nine months. the scope of the project itself was the justification to threaten the tenants with displacement for over nine months. they follow up by saying this letter is merely to provide a final request that you engage in discussions with my client pertaining to the future plans for the premises. they said, no, we want to keep

our home. the rest of the notice. >> your time is up. >> thank you. you will have a rebuttal time. is there any public comment? come on up. >> . >> i live across the street at 121 varennes. >> your time is included during mr. wong's presentation. you can speak during the two minute rebuttal. >> any other public comment in support?

>> good evening. teresa flander north beach. i am here to as you look at the timeline that was in 29 days of his deed for this building being registered. he then filed the pre-filed the prenegotiation buyout. this is from the very start about displacement by design. this is going to change the use of affordable housing to market rate luxury housing in the upper and lower unit. it is going to mean a loss of affordable housing. he has circumvented the buyout law to put constraints on the building. that would be the reason you would not necessarily want to have protected tenants in there. you need to find away around

that. this means for us in north beach the loss of diversity of ethnics and economic diversity. we have lost 59 people within four blocks of this very building within a very short time. we can't let this continue. a 3 one year tenancy by the chinese seniors and family members, that is four tenants. that was family housing. this is not adding family housing. this is destroying family housing that is actually affordable. we ask again, you can put a.d.u.s in the basement area where it is a two car side by side garage. we allow storage units to put in a.d.u.s in. this is a perfect situation. no one would be displaced in that storage in terms of housing

services. they could do a simple renovation. there are so many things that could be done that wouldn't be disan placement and loss of affordable housing. i urge you to deny this project as it is. >> any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. with that we will hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening commissioners. i am going to show a couple photographs here. mr.ker win is a 15 year renter he found it here on 121-124. his home is not a large key

sign. it is 1250 square feet. by no means a super large luxury house. the photo in the existing photos shows what it would look like at the end of the day. none of the addition would be visible from the street. it including restoring the structure and replacing the windows with wood windows and repairing the existing trims and finishes. it is designed to be sensitive to the neighbors. in lieu of keeping the existing light well which was offset from mr. wong's light well, we managed to redesign it to line up with his light well to greatly increase the light instead of overlapping two feet it is 7.5 feet. instead of 45 degrees angles it is 90 de agrees angles to

increase the light to the light well. were mr. wong's request we increased windows to allow more light to the light well and increased the skylight above to allow light to the light well. meetinmeeting with the neighbors the street we agreed to change the exterior from stucco to siding. we calculated the parapets t toe the exact height as opposed to the 20 feet. the proposal is straightforward from the architectural perspective to be extremely respectful to the neighbors and trying to be a low profile not visible from the street and low impact to the light well. i can be available for any questions. >> you still have some time. that is it.

>> if you have questions for me, i am the architect. >> any public comment in support of the project sponsor. >> you have a two minute rebuttal. if you want to use it it is your prerogative. >> very short time. amazing. in the letter that i submitted to you that outlines in much more detail the list of exceptional and extraordinary conditions of this project so i hope you read that. based on that, we request that you take dr and require changes to the projects. please consider either, one, disapproving the proposed inflater floor expansion to the lower basement level or two requiring the project sponsor to

provide three units consistent with the rh3 zones and that accessory unit or a.d.u. to be added at the lower basement level that would be permanently affordable. [please stand by]

project sponsor do you have a rebuttle? >> sure, i can speak to the low profile of the architecture. at the beginning of this project, looking at whether or not there was i third unit in there we did extensive research and we tried to put in a u.d.u. in there. it was not feasible from an exiting perspective or from the height constraints at that lower level. so i'm not sure how a third unit would fit into this building. again, i think this is a small proposal we're talking about and

1200 square foot unit which is not excessive by any means. i can be available. commissioner moore. >> coming in at the owned of a difficult day. it was a lot of soul searching and policy. it's almost taking my breathe away. i have to be honest. it's not what the department brought forward but it's in the depth and succinctness of public testimony. that is what basically just knocks me off my feet. i want to be very honest in my emotion reaction to it and for the record, i'd like to suggest that we acknowledge, the policy director of china town community development center. he did not introduce himself by name and it's a very important statement here for us to listen

to very carefully. this is not one neighbor who has a grudge. we're being called to face a project which all of the things, every week we moan and groan, it's finally being brought to us with more clarity, with more spotlights shown on to what is wrong than i have ever witnessed before. so here we go. i would like to ask the owner, if he is in the room, i'd like to ask you a few questions. i'd like to do that because what is in front of me is just someone saying something. i'd like to hear it from you, the following answers to the following questions -- when you bought the building, were you aware that there were tenants in the building? >> yes, i was. >> thank you. and under what circumstance did these tenants leave?

>> i made them -- i had no contact with them personally but my attorney made them aware of the plans for the building. they chose to vacate permanently. >> it's very hard to hear. can you bring up the mic a little bit so that everybody can hear you because i want to give you room to tell us what happened. >> yes, sorry. they were made aware of the plans for the building per the letter. and rather than face an eviction, they chose to vacate. >> at the time, when you moved in the housing problems that has been so much discussed, were you aware of that situation? >> yes, i am. i've lived here 15 years. >> so you were basically talked to about that? >> my attorney talked to me about it. i'm a resident in the city. i'm aware of the problem.

>> so what did you give them to leave? what did you give them to leave? >> there was a settlement reached on another matter. it was all handled by my attorney. >> thank you for your honesty responding to my questions. i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> mr. johnson, thank you. so, in reviewing this project, as i do with a lot, i just google them to just look and see what the listings have said. in all of the listings, even before we got the letter today, it said there were protected residents on the property. even in the pictures you can see that people were living there. i just personally -- i feel as emotional as my fellow commissioner, more and i do

think, given th given the powerl testimony of all the folks that came to speak about how emblematic this is and also the community that it's in, i do not feel comfortable rewarding what happened here with approval of this project. it cannot approve this project. >> commissioner richards. >> i said it and i'll say it again and again and again. if he is stuck in a.d.u. why this project in the future we're done minutes tarly and we wouldn't be sitting here reviewing it. i'm telling everybody, you have to get to your senator, your assemblymen and tell them that discretionary reviews needs to stay on the books. otherwise we have no way to deal with this, ever. i agree with commissioner johnson. i absolutely can't support it. all of you engage a buy out, you never followed through.

the buy out would abstain the building's condo conversion status. >> i'm say homeowner. i'm not familiar with the process. i retained legal council. that's all i can say. i think the letter attests to the fact had the family chosen to move back in following construction that option was there for them. like i say, i'm not a developer. i'm moving into this as my home. >> thank you. i think we have -- i don't think we have questions. for me, i also will not support this project. i support us taking discretionary review. if it were a different project, and it would at least come up to you rh-3 it would be a different story. that's not what this is. i would say you seem creditable. i do not believe that someone invests $1.3 million into a property without knowing what the rules are.

you are saying my attorney handled it. to me -- >> i don't believe -- i said i did not know the rules. >> you said you are just a home owner and you didn't know about it and your attorney handled it. >> i was making a different point. this is a one-off home project. a development. it's not speaking to a broader issue. >> so this one also, your actions had a profound impact on at least one family's life that was there for 31 years for which we have legislation that specifically targeted to protect them and there was, because of the way that our rules are written, there was a way around it, which is what happened here. so i also do not think that i will vote to reward that. i think it's endemic of what is happening around this city. if this project comes back as a

three unit or maybe a three-unit with an a. e.u., you know, i will look at it differently. that is where i stand. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to make a motion to disapprove. i know that we do have that motion in front of us so it is a motion to -- >> there's no motion. we just record your actions. >> ok. >> it would be good to articulate findings of what is exceptional and extraordinary in this particular case. >> it's everything our fellow commissioners said, exception and extraordinary what has been read into public record by the public's testimony. and we can restate that but it is very clear. >> is there a second. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i just ask a question on

this. what was your dish mean, i'm very supportive of the motion in front of us. we face these challenges in the past. do you think it's feasible to do a unit that is affordable at some point in this building? what would a future project look like that would be -- that you would support? as someone who has worked on these issues? >> there are small footprint buildings with b.m.r.s. that is nothing extraordinary. i'm sure the commission has approved it in the past. >> this is rh-3. even the garage does not have to condition as a garage. we see on that street front age, instead of just building an a.d.u. on the back the whole ground floor could be a unit and hopefully one that's price controlled. >> absolutely. with the wonderful opportunity. >> i don't think we're going to

do that today but i encourage you all to talk. thank you for your testimony. >> commissioner richards. >> if this project were to come back, i wouldn't support any increasingly massing of the building. i would support dense indication iificationon the existing envel. >> seeing nothing further there's a motion that has been seconds to take d.r. and disapprove. commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> president melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> that's it. we're adjourned. thank you. >> thank you.

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder

so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity

foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been

here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and

they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient

what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things

you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country

so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future good government awards,