could see page 3. it would make it less massive and martin scale with the adjacent houses. the san francisco design guidelines referred to floor to floor height as noted. >> please speak louder into the microphone. >> to make it compatible which seems like a fair request. we share concerns about the proposed façade design too. there is a long row of houses on this block built in the same year that have the same ceiling height and façade character. and 279 as part of this group. so discontinuity is important to maintain in any changes to its façades pick the san francisco design guidelines emphasize the same points. we see that the proposed design is incompatible with the block face in a number of ways. there are four examples. number 1, design draws on precedents from houses of a different style and from different block faces, see page 6. number 2, looking at page 7,

although the proposed façade is taller -- is not taller then the current overall building height, the stucco wall portion would increase about 5 feet in height and so would be significantly out of scale with the adjacent façades. the problem is that the top floors is supposed to be raised 29 inches above his current level. see page 3, which is throwing many things off in the design. the guidelines asked, does the building seem oversized in relationship to the building around it? also related to page 7, the projecting building portion, this is number 3 pick the protected building portion looks awkward his with so much wall area under the area and so little above it. again, because of the 29-inch top floor level change. note how the ceiling height at this projection is about 6 feet as a result. also, entry portal is taller then the adjacent entry portal. the guidelines ask, to certain elements of the building seem to be the wrong size in relation to

other parts, and can the dimensions of the project be adjusted to relate better to the surrounding buildings? the answer to both is clearly yes. number 4, the proposed windows do not match the current sizes and one is off-center, in the current roof and guardrail over the entry portal have been removed, so the proposed design does not fit well with the block face pattern in these ways either. the park improvement club provided a letter during neighborhood notification, see page 8, stating many of these same concerns about the additions and façades. it also noted concerns about inaccuracies in the drawings. for example, the façade at pat chechen house in mind have not been shown accurately in a number of drawings. see pages nine and ten and compare them with the photo on page 5. often making them look more massive than they are which raises questions about whether these drawings have visually justified the proposed design to the planning department and neighbors. given all of the design issues with the proposed façade, it

seems obvious that the best solution is to either keep the existing façade and make only cosmetic changes to it, or at the least, keep the existing ceiling heights of the façade and use the other façades in the block face as guides to ensure compatibility of the new design with a block face character and scale. in conclusion, i hope the commission will support my concerns about the scale and sidewalls of the top floor addition and will require a façade design that is truly compatible with the block face in its scale and character. thank you. >> thank you. it's or any public comment in support of the d.r. requester his? okay. project sponsor? >> later. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is matt hollis, i am the

architect and the project sponsor. my wife and daughters are probably watching from the live feed right now, and we will all be living -- and we currently reside at 279 bellavista temporarily, not living there, anticipating future construction our house was built in 1947, over 70 years ago. as the record shows, we're not the first house to propose a vertical or horizontal envelope expansion in the neighborhood. given the current housing crisis that was described at length earlier, i think we can be reasonably sure we will not be the last. we are proposing a 1600 square-foot increase to accommodate our growing family

that observes the park design guidelines and the san francisco planning department residential design guidelines. per the planning department recommendations, we have minimized the overall height of the building to nestle the proposed second floor addition behind the massing of the façade i've got a drawing of that. could i do the overhead? thanks. >> pull it down. >> what you are currently looking at is existing, and the

red overlay indicates the neighbor to the west which would be in cone whose representative just spoke, and this next drawing represents the proposed. so you can see that basically right now there is an area as we are essentially filling in. so the proposed vertical edition -- addition is not visible. aside from some improvements of the building façade, which have been outlined, the proposed vertical edition is nonvisible from the street. in accordance with the park design guidelines, we're working with the existing site topography rather then against it. the proposed site -- the proposed design seeks to take

advantage of the sizable existing crawlspace that is below the street level and converted to habitable living space. we have maximize the allowable convertible area, mindful of the neighbor charge of foundations. we don't want to do anything massive around the front of the building and we are trying to concentrate the improvements to the rear portion. the horizontal addition to the back of the building is stepped below extreme level and is proportional to the existing pattern of rear decks seen on the house to either side. again, this is existing, and

this is a portion where we are filling in, and this is proposed the 12-foot expansion of the building envelope is set back from both adjacent property lines by 3 feet to address concerns regarding diminished light and view to the areas below both neighbors charge at decks. the rear stairway which provides access to the backyard navigates the severe grades changes by tucking it discreetly into the . i should mention that as was mentioned earlier, a previous version of this design had a stairway popping up the back, but a rear neighbor had expressed so much concern about

that, and as we pulled the building in on both sides by 3 feet, it seemed to make sense to try to make that stairway less obtrusive by nestling it in the 3-foot setback. it's also more straightforward and more buildable. we have maintained the massing of the street façade to preserve this scale and rhythm of the existing houses on either side. >> so the top row here represents the existing bro of houses and you can see 279 el avista. and being mindful of the massing

-- mapping, we have sought to maintain the pattern and work with the existing pattern, rather than be -- stick out. the height of the building, the scale of the windows, the door opening have all been considered for planning staff recommendations, we are happy to continue to engage with neighbors' input as the front façade is further revised. in closing, after much consideration and hard work, we feel the design as submitted represents a sensitive approach to horizontal and vertical additions in the neighborhood. in anticipation of other homes, we feel the proposed design would be an asset to the community and serve as a model

for future development. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. you have a rebuttal. you can ask us questions too. >> yeah, my question is, i've forgotten it. they were two other neighbors who wrote into the planning department to kathleen campbell, and i in fact, later sent to those exact same two letters, including the maryland park improvement which was number 3 to david winslow, so i just wanted to have that on the record that i personally have proof that three people did object to this project. i would like to say two things. the back, the lower neighbor did disapprove of a deck that was

supposed to come off the very lowest and that deck was about n determine, that was their main concern. they did not want people on that deck half that -- has the -- hovering over them. but i am envisioning a walkway, some steps, i totally agree the deck is good for their benefit, but there be a walkway, stairs, then going down to the side and into the backyard so the backyard would be accessible. on the massing thing, i wanted mr. hollis -- i wanted to mention that my house is incorrectly represented. it shows my house as being quite high, and it -- it is in fact not. it has a flat roof, so it makes it a little smaller, a little shorter, but that is not my

issue. my issue is it is a false representation and it shows me house to be very high, almost matching his peak and my house is actually way below that. it does not even reach the peak of the neighbor on the lower side. so i would just hope that you would consider my -- is that it? >> that is your time. thank you, but you have a rebuttal also,. >> the one point i would make is the scale -- >> his please speak up because we can hardly hear you. >> i was not born with a voice. when you look at an elevation that matt hollis showed of the block face, it is true. i would say again, although the proposed façade is not taller then the current overall building height, the stucco wall portion which occurs at the top of which is at the bottom of the sloped roof now, would extend 5

feet higher. what we're talking about with the façade is something like that. 5 feet higher. erases the floor about 29 inches , about the height of a desk. what happens with the façades, if you look at the photos in that handout, everything is fine scale if that makes sense, smaller dimensions. so if you are increasing something 5 feet in height or floor height, it starts throwing everything off. so i would say although it is true, the scale fits the block, it is in the fine points that this really is an important decision to keep it in scale and fitting with the block face. i would just reiterate what jennifer has provided in the statement and say if the commission can support it, she would ask that the floor levels spee where they are now to keep the scale compatible with the

block face, which has a very consistent design pattern. >> thank you, his or. okay. commissioner koppel? >> i'm sorry. what did you say? >> don't they have a rebuttal? >> i'm sorry, i'm so tired. you have a rebuttal. >> i guess i just wanted to provide clarification. this is a rendering of existing, which i believe is accurate. we've heard concerns that our representation of the neighbor façades were not accurate previously and we've attempted to try to make things as accurate as possible, and you

can see that there is a flat roof, and the existing house at 279 bellavista has basically a different roof, as does jen's house. and what we are proposing is basically it is more of a straight, flat façade that is, in some ways, similar to pat's house, and she has a streamline house, and we are basically looking for -- to make it more contemporary then the existing, and we do not have a parapet. basically the roofline is able to accommodate the interior

dimensions. >> okay. thank you. commissioner koppel? >> i know the area very well. this is one of those instances where on one side of the street, it goes uphill, the other side of the street it goes downhill, so the way to add onto the house is on the rear. we do think the front should match the existing houses as much as possible, so i would highly recommend that discussion continue, but i am in favor of the work in the rear as proposed >> commissioner moore? >> i personally do not have a problem with the scale of how the building expressed itself on the front because change and

having a flat façade still is really keeping the scale. mr. winslow, when you hear the d.r. requester's are there other thoughts in your mind when you talk about scale? i personally i am not interested in actually lowering hides and accommodating something that i don't think will be resolved by doing that. >> if i can define the question in the form of an answer, to respond to the d.r. requester's issues, there is two things. it is the mass. you're adding three talk to 5 feet based on the proposal, but as you mentioned, it is -- it basically appears no different then the existing building because of the roof. what is thrown off, the contention of what is thrown office because you have floor plates that are different now,

and so window proportions become important. what's really important in the design guidelines is that level of specificity of when, and in this context, in particular where you have extremely consistent block face character, which is defined more by the proportions of the windows, the stepping and the regularized pattern as it ascends up or descends down with the topography, the scale of the entries, and then there's relatively few things going on in these façades. i mean, they are beautiful buildings, but the building has a very nice detail at the parapet, and then brackets on that solid volume projecting out and a nice entry. and then there is horizontal bands. i think there is additional references that could be used in a modern way to respect some of those patterns in the environments that could still

satisfy the modernization building. that is what we're talking about , as some of those levels of detail refinements on the façade. >> but getting back to my original question, that particular tuning is not basically achieved by lowering floor plates. it is in a subtlety where you deal with horizontal and proportional elements. >> i call it tricking the façade in other words, you can play and make up the deltas in these cases with windows that seem to do two things at once. they kind of match proportionally to the façade that we are talking about which happens to have a higher floor-to-ceiling then the existing neighbors, but at the same time, have some connection with the lines along the block face. you're kind of mediating two opposing things.

>> i believe the addition to the rear is sensitive. i do think that them filling in under the deck is a good way of expanding the home but staying with the predominant massing. the recommendation is to basically take it but approve the modifications which deals with tuning the façades, so to speak. i would basically make a motion to do exactly that. >> second. >> if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and approve the projects as proposed , working further with staff to produce those façade modifications. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously.

>> okay. >> we are adjourned.

francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world.

>> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became

the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. >> special things to the women

that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system we need to change the system

we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there. >> we get have to get to help them. >>

good morning. thank you all for being here and i'm happy to be join bid supervisor from district ten and our new director of the department of public health. also here are the people from my office working tirelessly to help protect another generation of san francisco youth from becoming addicted to ecigarettes. that has been lead my chief deputy and chief of strategic advocacy, sarah eeisneburg. in december, the u.s. surgeon general, jerome adams, issued a warning of the epidemic of ecigarette use and called this a cause of great concern. know the risks, take action, protect our kids.

he was absolutely correct and we're heeding that warning. today we are taking action to protect our young people. the steps we are taking are necessary and all the more urgent because another arm of the federal government has failed to do its job. the food and drug administration is the entity responsible for revealing new tobacco products to determine whether they are appropriate for the protection of public health. by law, before a new tobacco product goes to market, the fda is supposed to conduct a review to evaluate risks and benefits of the product on the population as a whole. that's common sense. if the fda determines this poses a threat to public health, it should never hit the shelves. inexplicably, in the case of ecigarettes,s that has not happened. despite the fact in 2016, the fda deemed this a product subject to the jurisdiction.

these products were on the street even though the premarket reviews have never been done. in fact, fda has given the ecigarette industry a pass. for no clear reason, they have given the nicotine companies until 2022 to apply for a premarket review. the result is that millions of children are already addicted to ecigarettes and millions more will follow if we don't act. until recently, we had made great strides in reducing youth tobacco use. the percentage of youth was an all-time low in 2017. there had been a generation of success, kid wer kids were gettf of nicotine. but last year, according to the centre for disease control and prevention, tobacco use among youth rose for the first time since the 1990s. this dramatic reversal is

directly attributable to the nation-wide surge in ecigarette use by talents. adolescentses. the use in 2016 increased 14% and 4.9 million america students reported they were using tobacco products up from 3.6 million students in 2016. use of ecigarettes increased by 27% for high school students and 48% for middle school students. nearly five million american students were using tobacco products. that's a generation of kids, addicted kids facing lung cancer and heart disease and thousands will likely die of preventible diseases if we don't act and that's not high perso hyperbole. tobacco kills more than 480,000 people a year. that's more than aids, alcohol,

car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. that is why we're acting now to reverse the tide of ecigarettes. let's be clear, they're product is addiction. they're in the business of getting people addicted or keeping them addicted. a relatively small number of adults may switch switc from ant useful to turn another generation of kids into addicts and it's up to a government like san francisco to protect our children and today we are announcing we're taking four concrete step. first, san francisco along with the city of chicago and the city of new york sent a letter to the fda that demands that the fda do it's job. we are jointly telling fda to immediately conduct the required

public health review of ecigarettes that by law was supposed to happen before these products were on the market. a companion letter includes a rey for the fda to turn over records to my servic office so n francisco can determine if we need to take legal action if they don't take the public required health review. second, we can't wait on the fda to act. so in coordination and partnership with supervisor walton and i want to thank him for his leadership and vision on this issue, we are introducing today ground-breaking legislation at the board of supervisors to prohibit the sale in san francisco of any ecigarettes that has not undergone pre-fda market review. my ecigarette that has not received fda premarket review cannot be sold at a store in san francisco or bought online and shipped to a san francisco

address. this is not an outright ban on ecigarettes. it's a prohibition against any ecigarettes. so far none have been through the review process required by law. this is a prudent step to know the health and safety implications of products sold here. if the fda has an not approved it and reviewed it, it shouldn't be sold in san francisco. third, on a more local level, we're introducing a separate piece of legislation today, again in card natio in coordinah supervisor walton. this would protect the sale and manufacture of all products including in sanfrancisco, including port property.

fourth, my office as part of our review of juuls, operations sent notice to juul seeking an explanation for why juul holds a license when it maintains it does not engage in sale or cigarette products on the premises. san francisco has never been afraid to leave and we're not afraid to do so when the health and lives of our children are on the line. with that, i would like to turn it over to supervisor walton, who has been a fearless partner and visionary leader both on the school board and now on protecting our city's youth. >> first, i want to thank the city attorney for his fierce leadership on this. i am really sick and tired of the predatory practices for our young people where people are tryintrying to set them up for d

habits for a lifetime. this has to stop and ecigarettes are contributing that. when we passed prop 10 in 19198, which wa1998go out and educate t preventing tobacco use, preventing nicotine addiction and we showed record numbers that we were able to do that and accomplish that. and now we have more predatory practices going after our young people and this, again, has to stop. so i want to thank the city attorney for his leadership on this. as you know we're going to be announcing legislation at this afternoon's meeting. you've heard a lot of the data in terms of the change and shifts from winning people off tobacco to having more and more young people using tobacco and nicotine products. i want to say this, that ecigarettes have been targeting our young people with their colours and their flavours and enticing adolescentses and this

is pulling them forked nicotine addiction. we have people addicted to nicotine who would never have smoked a cigarette had it not been for the attractive products that target our young people. so we can see and understand why it's so important to make sure that if things are not approved by the fda, if products have not been given the stamp of approval by the government, then we know they're not safe and until the fda does that, we have to make sure that these products are not sold in our stores here in san francisco. the city has already enacted ordinance 140-117 prohibiting retail establishments from selling flavoured tobacco products. ecigarettes are flavoured nicotine products. nicotine is what addicts all of our young people and addicts everybody. it is the addictive chemical in tobacco and nicotine and the effect of nicotine is what we have to combat as well.

until the fda rules on approval of ecigarettes, we need to prohibit all sales for anyone under the age of 21 and anyone here in the city and we need to make sure that we have a ban on selling products, vaping products on any city property here in san francisco. what juul is doing is irresponsible and claimed to not be a part of the tobacco industry. i meant with them and they swore up and down they were not connected to the tobacco industry and a week and a half later, they merged with a tobacco company. therefore, not only are they not truthful but irresponsibly focused and working to addict young people on nicotine products so they will be long-time users of nicotine products to make a profit and harm their health. we won't stand for that and that's why we'll fight har in

san francisco to avoid predatory products to our young people. i want to thank you all for coming out and we will combat this towards our young people. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor walton. i would like to ask our new director of the department of public health, dr. grant kofax to say a few words, as well. >> well, thank you. i just want to reiterate this is a major step forward for public health in san francisco, continuing the leadership that san francisco has historically shown in addressing major public health issues. i want to offer my gratitude to city attorney herarra and we know this has been reiterated in the remarks today, that mechanic teethat nicotineaddiction is das damaging affecdamaging effects s brain and it's attracting a whole different generation the

youth to nicotine. we know that tobacco is the greatest cause of preventible deaths in this country. ecigarettes are responsible for the increasing levels of tobacco use that we're seeing in youth. we know that we need to do better. we need to turn this epidemic around. ecigarettes are a gateway drug to tobacco use and that has been shown in numerous studies. so we're here not only addressing the numerous affects being addicted to a substance, the direct effects on nicotine but taking a major step in that gateway from ecigarettes addiction. this is going to save hundreds, if not thousands of lives in san francisco and is a major step forward in breaking this epidemic. again, i'm grateful from the

health department's perspective. this is a move in the right direction and major policy advance and the health department is very supportive of that. thank you. >> thank you, dr. kolfax and with that, we're happy to take any questions anybody has. >> is won't happens to the establishments that has the products on the shelves? do they take them down? >> we have to go through the legislative process and i have every confidence that supervisor walton will sheppard this legislation through as quickly as possible. once that legislation passes and works with the final product, then, yeah, until such time as the fda gave its premarket review and approval, there would not be allowed in either a hard brick and mortar store the sale

of distribution manufacturer of ecigarettes and you wouldn't send it online until one or the other products had received the premarket review by the fda. >> so would this be two months, six months? >> it will be introduced today and we'll be working hard with colleagues to make sure this becomes law. when it does become law, it will take affect 30 days after this is complete. with that said, we'll be working hard to move as fast as possible. i can give you a better answer and response in a couple of weeks. >> why do you all think that the federal government has given a pass to ecigarettes so far and what is the power in strength in numbers? san francisco and chicago all pleading with the ftda to crack

down on this. >> i can't answer for the fda but it's pretty darn expoliticcable they have failed to act. the tobacco control act was passed in 2009 and in 2016, the fda said that these products were subject to fda jurisdiction. yet, they said that they didn't have to first file their premarket review until 2018. and then they extended that to 2022. in the meantime, we've known that ecigarettes, we're talking about 15 years with no premarket review for a product that we know is addicting our kids, a whole other generation of kids to a deleterious drug threatening public health and safety. it is inexplicable and inexcusable to me that the fda has failed to act. the fact that we got chicago and

new york to sign this letter in no time should be a message to the federal government that municipalities and localities are not going to tolerate this and we're going to act as quickly as we can to protect our young people. i have no doubt that as a result of today as action, both that letter and legislation, you will see other jurisdictions step up to demand action from the federal government. if we can't expect that the fda will protect the health and safety of our young people, then i don't know what the function of the fda really is. so hopefully they'll get the message. >> in terms of targeting juuls, would this grandfather them in? will they continue do what they do there. >> good question. under the terms of their -- they have a sublease down at the port

and they have said that they are not manufacturing, distributing, doing anything through that facility. at this point, we don't have any evidence that they are in violation of the terms of their lease agreement. but that's why i sent the insmith demantheinspection demae it's areas they havit's curioust doing any sale on property. if i find they're in violation, i would take action of breaking the terms of their lease. but the legislation that supervisor walton is championing with respect to what is occurring on port property will enshire we will never have a similar circumstance that we have a company like this operatinoperating on similar pr. >> this should be a message to juul or any other corporation

that thinks they can come into san francisco and operate in accordance that is against our values here as a city and so, this legislation is going to be focused, of course, and making sure this never happens again on any city property but it's also a warning to juul. it's also a statement to juul that we don't want them here. we don't want them in our city and so we're going to be fighting to make sure that we figure out and learn if there's anything that they're doing that is not in accordance with san francisco laws and regulations. >> would you eventually want to see juul leave the city? >> i would like for them to have been gone yesterday. we have been clear about that and our neighbors have been clear about that and we definitely would like for them to conduct business somewhere else. >> so excuse me, when the city signed a contract with juul, did they not know what the company did or why did they enter into a contract with the company? >> the city didn't enter into a contract. there's a massive lease

developer at pier 70 that had a lease with another tenant and as part of that, there was a sublease between juul and that tenant and under the terms of the agreement that we had with master developer, there were certain rights that were given up by the city unless there was certain milestones and square footage. so we didn't know about it and weren't aware about it but it has been a lesson learned about how it is that the city engages with massive developers. i can assure you and i'm supervisor walton will, as well, this is a circumstance that will not happen again. >> any other questions? >> thank you very much. [ ♪ ]

>> it's great to see everyone kind of get together and prove, that you know, building our culture is something that can be reckoned with. >> i am desi, chair of economic development for soma filipinos. so that -- [ inaudible ]

know that soma filipino exists, and it's also our economic platform, so we can start to build filipino businesses so we can start to build the cultural district. >> i studied the bok chase choy her achbl heritage, and i discovered this awesome bok choy. working at i-market is amazing. you've got all these amazing people coming out here to share one culture. >> when i heard that there was a market with, like, a lot of filipino food, it was like oh, wow, that's the closest thing i've got to home, so, like, i'm

going to try everything. >> fried rice, and wings, and three different cliefz sliders. i haven't tried the adobe yet, but just smelling it yet brings back home and a ton of memories. >> the binca is made out of different ingredients, including cheese. but here, we put a twist on it. why not have nutella, rocky road, we have blue berry. we're not just limiting it to just the classic with salted egg and cheese. >> we try to cook food that you

don't normally find from filipino food vendors, like the lichon, for example. it's something that it took years to come up with, to perfect, to get the skin just right, the flavor, and it's one of our most popular dishes, and people love it. this, it's kind of me trying to chase a dream that i had for a long time. when i got tired of the corporate world, i decided that i wanted to give it a try and see if people would actually like our food. i think it's a wonderful opportunity for the filipino culture to shine. everybody keeps saying filipino food is the next big thing. i think it's already big, and to have all of us here together, it's just -- it just blows my mind sometimes that there's so many of us bringing -- bringing filipino food to the city finally.

>> i'm alex, the owner of the lumpia company. the food that i create is basically the filipino-american experience. i wasn't a chef to start with, but i literally love lumpia, but my food is my favorite foods i like to eat, put into my favorite filipino foods, put together. it's not based off of recipes i learned from my mom. maybe i learned the rolling technique from my mom, but the different things that i put in are just the different things that i like, and i like to think that i have good taste. well, the very first lumpia that i came out with that really build the lumpia -- it wasn't the poerk and shrimp shanghai, but my favorite thing after partying is that bakon

cheese burger lumpia. there was a time in our generation where we didn't have our own place, our own feed to eat. before, i used to promote filipino gatherings to share the love. now, i'm taking the most exciting filipino appetizer and sharing it with other filipinos. >> it can happen in the san francisco mint, it can happen in a park, it can happen in a street park, it can happen in a tech campus. it's basically where we bring the hardware, the culture, the

operating system. >> so right now, i'm eating something that brings me back to every filipino party from my childhood. it's really cool to be part of the community and reconnect with the neighborhood. >> one of our largest challenges in creating this cultural district when we compare ourselves to chinatown, japantown or little saigon, there's little communities there that act as place makers. when you enter into little philippines, you're like where are the businesses, and that's one of the challenges we're trying to solve.

>> undercover love wouldn't be possible without the help of the mayor and all of our community partnerships out there. it costs approximately $60,000 for every event. undiscovered is a great tool for the cultural district to bring awareness by bringing the best parts of our culture which is food, music, the arts and

being ativism all under one roof, and by seeing it all in this way, what it allows san franciscans to see is the dynamics of the filipino-american culture. i think in san francisco, we've kind of lost track of one of our values that makes san francisco unique with just empathy, love, of being acceptable of different people, the out liers, the crazy ones. we've become so focused onic maing money that we forgot about those that make our city and community unique. when people come to discover, i want them to rediscover the magic of what diversity and empathy can create. when you're positive and committed to using that energy,

>> good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the march 18, 2019, rules committee. seated to my right is shamann walton, and seated to my left is rules committee supervisor gordon mar. and we're joined by president norman yee. and i would like to thank those from s.f. gov. tv for staffing this meeting. >>