of you and congratulations to this incredible team. thank you to the parents and the family members who are here today. we appreciate your support, and -- well, i would say continue to get good grades, but you guys go to lowell so i don't have to say that. continue to just remember that you all as champions are leaders. people look up to you because of what you've been able to accomplish, and so continue to hold your heads up high, do all the great things that you are meant to do, and who knows what may end up happening in the future. you could end up mayor. so thanks for coming today, and congratulations. [applause]

>> good afternoon and welcome to the regular hearing for wednesday, february 19th, 2020. i will remind members of the public we do not tolerate any outbursts. please silence cell phones and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, state your name for the record. i see the poster boards are up but they're blocking the monitors. so at least the one in the back should be moved so members of the public can view the monitor. appreciate you guys going old school. i'd like to take role at this time.

(role call). >> first up is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except the agenda items. with respect to agenda items, that will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i had just the one speaker card. >> it's not me. [ laughter ] >> no, i know it's not you. [ laughter ] >> it's carvallo. >> real quick, i'm from the san francisco heritage. i just want to mention that the legacy business backlog right now is five months when a business applies to be a legacy business and they're overwhelmed over there and i think rick could use some help. so any influence you might have

to move resources to the office of small business to help with the legacy business program, you all know how popular it is, but we try to get a new business online and five months is pushing it. so that's all. thank you for any help you might give. >> thank you. >> i am from the mission district. i came here to bring awareness of one historical fact in sanfrancisco that we are destroying as my point of view. i have a pdf file, and i can maybe put it here. >> yes. it's about the historic san francisco granite in our curbs and it was placed in san

francisco over 120 years ago. i come from a city that is older than san francisco an. and i have awareness of that and i start to notice and went over and over by myself, didn't happen to do anything, until i went to the public and comment on the trees that was being destroyed in the mission and i said, we would need to be aware more of the granite than of the tree, because when we going to take the tree, we going to wash away the granite. i went over the city, walk around a one-hour walk and it's destruction is coming from city hall, either us, the department of public works or license by the city hall. people that owns house have granites in front of them and licensed to destroy.

if you have a couple of minutes, i can show my walks. this is the history of one company that found granite in san francisco and it's about the kind of construction zone of the street over there. and we go over and i walk by, and this picture shows the left-hand side is the mountain and the right-hand side is my curb in front of my house. we can see they are the same and we hover here in the mountains. when we cut it through was the railroads. and this picture of the mountain was taken this january and i walk up there. then here is a city work -- not

a city work, a private work and we see the granite in perfect condition and perfect place. this is mission street. and i went to the person, why are you doing that and the only answer is, i'm licensed. and i said we are licensed us to do it. thank you. people asking me only what we're doing with this and what we are doing is throwing on the beaches. >> your time is up, sir. >> thank you for the time. >> thank you. >> we cannot discuss this or approve, but we can direct this matter to be a future agenda. >> thank you, sir. >> i would request that would be taken in the code section

54954.2a and a discussion for the next meeting. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i'm a licensed practicing engineer, 40 years experience and the facade ordinance the city has adopted to restore facade's of buildings went into effect of january of this year and it doesn't appear to wood frame structures, per say. for example, my family owns shack number 26 and we removed a tran-site and restored it. this only applies to five-story buildings, written by the technology council and i was the president when we wrote it and it's now going into effect and deals with very big downtown buildings. that ordinance is going into effect and probably won't be act actively enforced and these are buildings with tera cota and brick and you have classic russ

jacking, will be coming in front of you the end of this year and next year. these are 10, $20 million facade restorations. you'll have a lot of demands on a technical basis, how do you deal with russ jacking, and how do you expedite, when you do the inspection, you find problems? are you cleaning with environmental? there are a lot of issues coming that aren't here yet but you need to start thinking about it. thank you very much, commissioners. >> great, thank you. any other member of the public wish to address the commission? i'll close public comment. that will place us under department matters, item one, director's. announcements. >> one within we hav, we have ag

commissioner who served her first day this past week and we have a new incoming planning director, rich hilles, and john ram's last day will be february 28th and rich will begin on march 9th and we will try to steer a steady ship that intervening week. >> thank you. review of past planning commissions staff support and announcements. as current planning director josyln reported, we have a new planning commissioner that started and i will convey to you, her first and the planning commission adopted the department's work program and budget. through that process, they indicated their desire to increase resources and funding for the cultural heritage

district's effort. and spoke about drafting a letter from both commissions. and so, there was a desire, a desire expressed to hold a joint hearing for that purpose, but i've got a request into the city attorney's office to see through consensus, maybe the commissions separately could direct the officers to maybe meet and draft that letter and send it out without a joint hearing. but if you want a joint hearing, i don't think there's any real opposition to increase or requesting an increase of funding for that effort and if you so chose, we could hold a joint hearing. i always encourage the officers to meet to talk about the agenda and limiting the scope of conversation so that it can be productive. if there's nothing further, we can move on to commission matters, item three, president's report.

>> no report. >> item 4, draft minutes for february 5th, 2020. >> we'll take public comment on our to draft minutes from february 5th. no public comment. bring it back to the commission. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> thank you commission commissd on that motion, commissione -- (role call). >> so moved and that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 5, commission, comments and questions. i don't see any. all matters under constituted consent calendar are considered routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted on by a single role

call and no separate discussion unless members of the public, staff or commission so requests, in which the matter shall be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate matter at this or a separate hearing. next 933 to 935 valencia street and item 7, 2019-1839 co8 at 1128 market street, certificate of appropriateness. i have no speaker cards. >> we'll take them both together? >> consent calendar item, you may and if anybody needs to be recused, we can take it separately. >> there's a typo in the 933 valencia street. there's approval of proposed minutes but nominutes.

it's on the second page, basis for recommendation, departments recommends approval with conditions. >> that's simply the executive summary. you're adopting the draft motion and as long the motion is accurate. >> i think it's repeated there. yes, it's repea repeated there. so we need to approve the conditions. >> yes. >> any member of the public wish to pull either of these items off the consent agenda? any commissioners wish to pull this off? >> no. >> could we have a motion? >> motion to move. >> second. >> motion to approve? >> a motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. then there's a motion that has been seconded to approve items 6 and 7 under the consent calend

calendar. (role call). >> so moved it passes 7-0. places under item 8, 740 tennessee street, certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the department staff. the application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 740 tennessee street, a contributor to the dog patch landmark district under article 10 of the planning code and located in an rh2 zoning district. it's with a four story building constructed, constructed circa 1878 as the episcopal church.

it was converted to a factory at the ground floor in 1921. the proposal includes construction of three new roof dormers, a new roof deck at the northwest corner of the roof, a new balcony at the rear facade and existing windows will be redone. there will be a new storefront window and garage door. new doors will be installed. the proposal includes extensive interior renovations and four existing residential units in common areas. the project wil.there's removale rear elevation wall and 20% of the existing stucco finish, 100% of interior floor framing and construction of a new framing roof deck at the rear.

the department received one request for information about the project. no members of the public have contacted the public. the project sponsor has presented the proposal and several subsequent revisions to the neighborhood association and is generally supportive. staff determined that the work will be in conformance outlined in article 10 of the planning code. based on the analysis in the report, staff recommends approval with the following conditions, first, that prior to the two building permit issues, the project sponsor shall submit a construction schedule for review by planning department staff. second, that the sponsor shall submit monthly progress to the planning department via email with description and photos of completed work. planning department preservation and/or enforcement staff shall conduct periodatic street instructions for windows, siding

and stucco and confirm abatement of the violation. staff finds that approval of the third condition pertaining to restoration and repair of existing stucco on the front facade will bring this in greater compliance wit standards with the standards. this was installed during the period of significance for the dog patch landmark district. they are based on physical evidence based on site and the building was adopted as a contributor to the landmark district in the current condition. the project sponsor prefers to remove the stucco with wood siding with the plans in your packets today. approval would require the sponsor to revise plans to include restoration and repair of the existing stucco at the front facade and prepare a mock-up of the finish for areas of loft, for department to review on site.

the fourth and final condition provides if additional windows require repair or replacement beyond what is identified in the proposed plans, there will be a consultant window assessments for any windows to be deteriorated beyond repair for review and comment by preservation staff. this additional scope of work shall be documented in a new building document application. only those windows found to be deteriorated beyond repair in the condition's assessment will be eligible for full replacement in kind. this concludes my presentation. department enforcement staff is here today and we are both happy to any questions you may have about the project. thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor. you think five minutes is sufficient? >> yes. i'm pat buscavich. the records burned in a fire.

there is a record in 1922 to add a pasta factory. it was a church and it was converted. there was a seven-inch sag in the building and we shored the building to make sure it was safe to remove and make the plaster safe. there is no permit we've been able to find to convert the building to units or put the bay windows on our do the stucco. we're confident with planning and done in the '20s when the phone records and the water records show four units. '56, they added asbestos siding and it doesn't belong on this building. what we know is the building was converted to look like this somewhere between 1920 and 1956, probably in '25. the stucco was poorly done and

that's an understatement and we believe the windows were re rettrougretrofitted. we have a rehab of the windows, but on the stucco, a proper stucco is three-coat and this is two-the coat. the overlaying stucco is delaminating off and not working. they attached it to the building by wood spacers and lapped over that and used nails into the boards, not even into the stud. those nails are not galvanized. and with the delamination, we don't think that the current stucco can be a salvaged. the idea is to preserve a building with stucco, you would want to apply with building and reapply the right building papers and stucco over the front

but it's so badly deteriorated, it's not salvageable. and we have done a seismic on this building. the 20% number, you heard about the facade -- well, most is the window and the garage door on the facaded building and they're being replaced and you can see that there. there are three holes for steel beams that pop out and there was exploratory stucco trying to figure out what's up with the stucco. we have an architect happy to talk to you about the issues with the building and i'll be here again. >> great, thank you. >> i'm the preservation architect here in san francisco. if i can have the overhead, please. so the dpr form for this property lists the buildings as an example about the only surviving remnant of a church in the district and multifamily

building. this is a classical revival style. it generally flows along the lines of this design and some of the church's detailing are present and the bay windows have classical ornamentation. the wall finish is not a prevalent aspect of it, so you take mission revival station and this is the building mentioned in the report or mission revival was important to the design didn't genre. the stucco needs full replacement and letting water get into the building and not a premiere feature of a classical revival style of architecture. so possibly consider an alternate material such as smooth wood board may be appropriate. in the rear of the building has been modified and added to over time and may not reflect the kooconfiguration. it's not being a premiere feature and we're proposing

alternate window materials, like metal, and it could be considered for an alternate material, so thank you. >> great, thank you for your succinctness. >> i'm the actual project sponsor and so, the building was built in 1878, all four sides had siding on it and the siding today from 1870 is still on the front of that building. on the right and left side, beneatunderneath the stucco. it was altered in the '20s and then before '25, converted to four units. so as we look through the history of this building, it's unique because it has three different areas, 70, 21 and 25 and that the siding is being replaced and rehabilitated on the sides, so we have a chance here of combining all three

histories with 1870 yet with the actual siding over 100 years old, with the stucco. we have a chance to take the stucco out and then celebrate the pasta factory that shows the window so there's the first celebration. the second celebration of the past window on the third one is celebrating when it became four units. so that was originally with the stucco over it. wouldn't it be nice to include the history from day one from 1878 to 2020 to combine it and look at it and say we have the siding of 1878, the pasta factory window. it's no longer a pasta factory but we'll celebrate the history and have the actual siding of 1870 be the front facade for the building. so somebody looks back and go,

thesthey treated all history bee you can't pick and choose what part to designate for the building and you should celebrate it and we do environment opportunitdo theopps actually here. we know for a fact that the siding is on the building and that is an actual fact. so we had another part and the dog patch association which is a vibrant association, so we reached out to them like six times and we went and met with them and had two city hall meetings and adopted the drawings three or four times to assert what they believe to be correct. the poster board on the right side is what they would like and approve and i can read you this email, full confirmation of approval from the dog patch community, if that works. >> i don't know if you need to read it, but you can submit it to the secretary. how much more time do you need?

we're out of time. >> one minute, 60 seconds or 30 seconds. on the rear of the building, we have wood windows in the rear, but we would like to change not the design of it, but the material from wood to metal windows and the same design,, ad i can show you the poster board. so the design stays the same and the significance on the rear and you're allowed to differentiate what is the material you would like to use. so if you could lift it up, robert. so right there, this is what has been approved, but it's in the wood windows and we would like to change just the material to wood metal because it is more maintenance material and et cetera than in the rear. we need to change not the design

but the material to wood. that's all i have to say, but let's celebrate the three parted of history, please. >> great. are there any questions for staff for the project team at this time. time? we'll go to public comment and one speaker card, patrick o'neil. and any other member of the public wish to comment on this project? commissioners, comments? commissioner perlman? >> i always think the word that mr. o'neil used was celebrate and, of course, this is our job, as preservationists is to celebrate the history of our place. i think it's a funny word and thought because we never tell the story of the building,

because we don't put a plaque out and so someone walking by, whether it has all three pieces of the history or just two pieces of the history or one will not know the difference. you know the difference because it's your property and that's not what i'm eluding to. what i'm eluding to is so many buildings in the city have been added to badly over time and in this case, the stucco put on in what is clearly a very inferior methodology of installing it over the original material that's still there. you know, there's all these buildings after world war ii where they used plastic crete and did fake stone along the base of the building. and somehow, if we use the same methodology that we're talking about here, then we should be celebrating the plastic crete which was a cheap way to fix a

building at that time and it wasn't thought about from a historical standpoint but a maintenance standpoint. so i just don't see how the plaster on the body of the building, you know, is necessarily something that even though it's in the period of significance, so is the original siding that was there. and in this particular case, we have a building that we see in 3d. you know, most buildings in san francisco, row houses, you only see the facade. so when you just see the facade, i think there's a case to be made about that's all you see and that's all you know. but when you look at this building, because it's a narrower building on a bigger lot, so it will never have something right up next to it and we see the original siding that's on the side, it's a very odd condition to have this plaster and wood connection where there's to real detail to

do that. it's not like it was an architecturally detailed relationship. it seems like it was clearly done out of a maintenance issue or a modernization at that moment in time because the bay windows were being put on and it was cheaper to make them out of stucco than with the wood siding. of course, we don't know the answer to that. so i would say that i think we should move forward without -- i mean, i could see keeping the plaster on the basin the the bas original. >> the trim would usually stick out an inch and a quarter and

the stucco has been applied to the edge so the windows went first with the siding and stucco came later and in '55, there was a permit to do asbestos shingles on the side and in '56,s there was siding applied over. the question is not to make another mistake on the beautiful siding. [ laughter ] >> i don't want to litigate it again. >> as noted in your case report and on site, the areas on the actual face of the building do, indeed, have the 1878, circa 1878 wood siding and then areas that were excavated themselves seem to have wood sheathing and it appears to be a substrait on

the base. >> ok, thank you. >> maybe that speaks to taking the plaster off by putting a sympathetic compatible wood siding that's not matching exactly. you know, maybe a different proportion on the base. or stucco on the base. but i can see, you know, removing the plaster from the body of the building and restoring the original siding. so that's the direction i would go. on the rear of the building, i don't have an opinion. again, this is a modern addition and not seen from the street. you could do a wood window that has aluminum cladding and at least the profiles could be the same. but i don't really have an opinion on that one way or another. >> i would question for staff on the window request, we don't have any documentation of what the new window that they're asking for is, is there?

>> no. that was just introduced today. what is in your case reports would be all wood and also, i just want to note, too, what was shown today doesn't seem to be exactly what is in your case report either in terms of the oe configuration of the windows. >> commissioner black? >> as a visually oriented person, i often look at the photos and the plans first and then read the report. it just helps my understanding and i looked at the little tiny photos of the building and thought, what on earth is this? how did this building end up looking as it does in the photos were little, tiny. so i drove by and, unfortunately, the building is her medically sealed behind material and i couldn't tell.

sometimes when it doesn't look standard of a particular era or architectural style, the best way to solve a problem is to simplify and just settle down, take it down a notch. and to me, i'm not convinced yet whether an all stucco facade or all-siding facade would be the way to do that. i would like to just see it simplified, some of the elements just to calm it down. i have no objections to the rear

of the structure. i think that's fine. i just find that the building needs a little bit of help on the front facade. so those are my comments. >> great, commissioner soh? >> thank you for the presentation. generally, i found that with monica's comment, too, that information provided to us prior to meeting and information presented right now is a little bit different. >> sir, you're out of order, unless the commissioner requests and answer to a question, your time to speak is over. >> i'm a bit confused how the evolution of this building came to this place. a lot of work had been done without a permit being warranted and now we're here with another

request of having the window to be totally requested, changing it to aluminum. without seeing any material, substantiating what kind of aluminum are you requesting to change? and in general, i really agree with commissioner black and also commissioner perlman. this building needed to simplify a little bit more. not a big fan of celebrating three or four faces with the building with three or four types of history. that's fa far fetching to me. like a lot of the buildings in the course of the life here has been gone through different versions of the renovations with legitimate permit approved in place. so i don't really feel comfortable with a motion to

approve this project. the things are inconsistent to what i -- i've spent time reading this and what i'm seeing and what i'm hearing is slightly different. and tand commissioner perlman ha point that the longest face of the facade is facing the open lot. so this is a public right of view and style-wise it's very different. i wasn't sure exactly what you're proposing, what you want to do. so many things to keep moving. so i think i would like to see a better coherent request that is agreeable with the staff under what we need to do. what is being honest and true to do? we own it t oh it to the neighbd

and building. >> commissioners, if i could chime in to elaborate on the staff recommendation. i think we did go back and forth quite a bit on the stucco and the appropriateness of the stucco versus the wood siding. i think when we looked at the district itself, you'll notice, for example, the residential siding has wood siding. and the industrial buildings that are in the district are typically associated with the stucco or concrete siding. the district sets up parameters that says that this material is typically associated with one type versus the other. our recommendation eventually came down to is looking at the standards and looking at what we have acquired. and recognising that the

building had been nominated, despite the stucco, that it was acknowledged that it would have this kind of funny and complex history. we've thought that the recommendations to kind of keep the stucco was the appropriate one. but realistically, i'll say this, you can go either way on it, given the change in views and change in character. but the building is complex with a kind of storied history. so it's kind of half a dozen of one versus the other, honestly, at the end of the day. you know, in most cases, commission soh is right. this was a project that came before us due to enforcement proceedings and we aren't punitive in our enforcement, in general, throughout the department. we work with the applicant to get something comfortable. but we do make sure that the review is appropriate as if they came in from the get-go. so we don't change our review just because they did work that we might not have agreed with.

it's always consistent with how would we have approached the project from the start? i hope that helps. >> if i could add on to what you're saying and ask a question for either you or monica. as an interpretation of the standards, though, and the basis of this recommendation, is that the stucco is a later addition that occurred within the period of significance and therefore, it has defining features and significance of its own and therefore, not to say that we can't say that it's ok for this particular project to take it back to the wood siding, but we would be playing with the standards a little bit. is that fair to say? >> that is accurate. i think staff's perspective was that this is not a restoration to return its use back to a church. what is happens, we're kind of continuing an ongoing residential use and the addition

of bays would have very, very likely be associated with the residential use to capture more space. given the evidence that we discussed earlier and that's talked about in the case report, there's no existing evidence of painted wood siding, circa 1878. so from a strict restoration, that's why staff made that recommendation. >> so that's what i wanted to point out, that's the foundation of the recommendations and it's kind of up to us to confirm that or we have the ability to -- it's within our jurisdiction to litigate that, i can you can say. >> commissioner foley? >> thank you. i just want to say if the project sponsor and the team went through the normal process, we would have a whole different conversation because we would be organized and we would know what was happening and the neighborhood could have weighed in. i'm personally frustrated that

you're doing this great work around this building but comes to us this way. so i think that to commissioner soh's point, it's a little muddled right now and i think that with commissioner black and commissioner perlman, i agree with both of your input. but i wish it came to us in a more organized, thoughtful matter, with the community and planning department's support in the beginning. >> did you want to add on? >> yeah, some additional thoughts here. from what i heard, i used to live in the dog patch and i know the dog patch neighborhood association fairly well. and the players there. and the fact that they appeared in front of that group six times and got their approval -, they'e the carriers of the dog patch historical district. i'm not confused here. i think it's pretty clear what

happened and, yes, it's a bad process, you know, to get here, that we didn't have proper permits. so i don't want to step back and say we have to do some further work or ask the project sponsor to do further work because something happened and the reason i say that is because a lot of times things happen and an inspector, a building inspector says that's all rotted, you better take it out and then all of a sudden, you're in a demolition condition, through no fault of your own, but following a bbi inspector because they're trying to make the building safe and not paying attention to a preservation issue at hand. so this is a contributor. it's not a landmark but a contributor to a district and so, i don't think we have to have a slavish adhere audience e process as commissioner highland said in terms of the fact that the character-defining feature

of residential buildings in this district is wood siding. and not blaster. so it's not that we're doing anything outside of the realm of what would be approvallable within -- if this facade were gone and everything was gone and you were trying to bring it back, you know, the department would just recommend the character defining features. you have wood on the sides and let's make it original, so let's pick up that same vocabulary. so to me, i don't find it confusing, because i think that there's a clear pattern and that stucco on these buildings is not a part of the pattern. so in terms of being true to the district, because this is just one contributor to a district -- because if it were so far gone and it wasn't considered historic, yes, it wouldn't have

been included originally in the district. that was my first hearing of the dog patch district in 2002 and i was so nervous that i read everything about it and i lived in the neighborhood, so i certainly cared about it. i think we should move forward with the recommendation of allowing this to have siding on it. i really do think -- i think it's appropriate and i don't think it violates any of the process or the protocol. >> if i could comment, i think it's a contributor and not an article 10 resource. it has a storied past and dealt with similar, much more significant structures and there's other reasons to be a little more true to its development and i don't think that is the case here. so i would be ok with the

knowledge that the bays, obviously, were not exposed wood based on some evolution of whatever happened before they actually applied the stucco and bringing it back to being more consistent, i don't have a problem seeing it's a contributor and not a resource itself. so i would be in support of that. i do want to talk a little bit about the windows and i think we try to be responsive to the project team that brings forwar. they're not the greatest and they convey the scope and that's what they need to convey. they convey what the contractors know to price it. i see now that i'm looking closer that the windows are drawn as if they were metal, but in the schedules, they're all labeled as wood.

so there is some inconsistency there in these documents and i don't think that it rises to the level of having them come back to us. i don't think that's necessary. we could delegate the review of those windows to staff, if we give them direction on what that would be. and i do want to know a little bit more and maybe staff can help us understand a little more about the metal versus wood, even on secondary facade. my understanding is that would then potentially create a precedent for other projects. i don't believe we've -- >> i'm happy to chime in. i think in general, metal is not a material on residential buildings. we're more forgiving on the rear facades and hence why on the other side of the building that faces the adjacent house, you have the funny cut-out in the

roof deck, which if it was on the public facade, we would never permit. we think it violates the historic character of the property. and i would argue to stay true that. we probably would not recommend metal on the rear facade of the building and if the window types are already wood throughout, they should stay wood throughout. >> commissioner black, did you have further comments? >> yes, i want to say that despite receiving a coml complid process like this, i do appreciate the staff information that we do get. it is their job to point out what they observe and what they believe. it makes our job easy. this was the public process and that is what this was for is to way in and sort through these things. given that this is a noncontributing structure, i think it gives us more latitude

to make a sound decision on how we cap help this building moving forward. so i don't have any objection to going to all siding, if that's the majority opinion on the commission. likewise, all stucco, i'm fine with that, as well. and with regard to the windows, i realize these are probably four flats and there's no single room that has -- from the front to the back, so there's not an interior conflict. i think we should do whatever is the most standard thing for the district. in terms of the window. >> commissioner soh. >> i think i agree with the evolution of that discussion. in terms of the that materiality of the facade. but the window is a bit messy here and the content and the

representations of all of the schedules that we have seen and the drawings, it's very inconsistent. we're all trained as architects and we zoom in and see these things and with the history of the evolution of your project, it is just a bit concerning and alarming to approve it as it is, because it sets a pretty bad precedent. your diagram and your schedule is not matching what you propose and then what you're asking today, it's all going to be metal. it's also really, to me, with the duty for san francisco, city and county of san francisco, it's hard for me to approve that part and i do agree with president highland that we should delegate it to monica and also to staff. perhaps each a mock-up in addition to the stucco mock-up, that staff should have the responsibility and right to do the right thing for the city to

look at the window mock-up. i don't even know -- i don't think anyone can price this because you didn't list the manufacturer of what you wanted to do. it's ok. i mean, because the sensitivity of the evolution of this project, it makes you wonder if the commissioner foley was saying, if you go through the right process, the way it's supposed to be, we would all have a little bit more just comfort and confidence.

we have to make sure we respect the city and there's a reason why there's a process and that's why it's becoming this way. we need to take a look the the window. monica probably spent way more time and work with her to come up with a really good solution for this neighborhood and this district. >> if i could add on b. i think staff will need direction on whether we want it to be wood and that has been our standard and what we've applied to the projects. so we need to give them that amount of direction, but we could delegate the actual review of the actual window schedules to make sure that it's representative of what is going to be approved and then would

end up being inspected for approval. did you have something further? >> i just wanted to say one thing, and that is i trust staff to work i the project sponsor to get this organized. i think the planning staff is just top shelf and if we could agree it was wood and wood windows, that won't be the directiothat would be thedirectn it over to staff. >> i had one last thing. i think the staff should have that responsibility and i agree that -- i don't think it would be a mock-up. i think it would be a piece of a real window. >> whatever works. >> but i do agree it should be wood. if the other three sides are wood, then the back should be wood, as well. i want to say one thing, though. we have approved projects like in alimo square, where it's a

slavish restoration of veteran n and we have done that on a couple of projects, but that is not that project. all of the projects should be wood an. i would like to hav to make a mo approve but with conditions, but allowing for the front facade to be wood siding rather than plaster and that the rear window should be wood, all wood windows on the rear. >> if i can just make a friendly amendment. so if i might recommend the commissioners add a condition of approval that the wood siding be based on what is historically evident on the building and that we we havway we have a paramete.

the bay window likely should have a different type of wood siding just to distinguish between the bay versus the building, since we know that the two were not aligned. >> but the old siding is there behind the plaster. >> correct. >> so we have something to base it on. >> so it would be that, either restoring that wood or if it's gone to match, exactly, because we have the exact wood. and i agree that for the bay windows, a siding that's compatible but not exactly the same. >> i think for the other condition i might add, then, it would be to revise, i guess, the west elevation to align with the windows that are provided in the schedule. they have dimensions and so that would mean reducing what is currently shown on the rear to scale with the windows that they have within the schedule. (please stand by)

>> that motion passes 7-0. that places us on item 9.

>> excuse me could we go back to item 5 to talk about the march 4th hearing? >> sure we can do that now. >> i want to point out to you on the advance calendar there are no items scheduled for the marc. if you chose you could cancel that meeting now. >> we need a motion and vote. >> motion to cancel. >> second. >> we should take public comment on that. >> any member of the public wish to comment on the desire to cancel the march 4th hearing? no public comment. back to the commission. >> to cancel march 4th, commissioner black. >> yes. >> foley.

>> yes,. (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. again, thank you president highland. i will just note there will be a arc meeting and regular meeting on march 18th. that places us on item 9. 2019-022126coa-02. 55 hagiwara. >> i need to reexcuse myself. we did the assessment of the concourse and therefore i have a conflict. >> i move to recuse president highland from this motion. >> thank you commissioners. (roll call).

>> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> sfgovtv can we go to the computer. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the item before you is request for certificate of appropriate necessary for the concourse in golden gate park. it was designated 249 under article 10 planning code in 2005. on january 15th this admission reviewed and approved the temporary installation of observation rail on the north side of the music concourse landscape. the item before you today is the second part of the project public lubrication for th. staff would like to note in

addition to a letter of support in the file for today's item the department has received three letters voicing concern for the project, one in support and two requests for additional information. >> the music concourse was part of the california midwinter fair in 1894 is individually significant as outdoor performance space, important in san francisco's cultural history under criteria one events of the national register, under criteria 3 architecture as urban parkland scape for public performances and setting for public art. it also contributes to the national register listed golden gate park historic district under criteria one and three in the areas of landscape architecture and social history. the music concourse is a

plastically designed -- classically designed landscape with tunnels, streets and the bowl is a depressed landscape with benches in rows, grid of trees, fountains and paths and monuments along with a public band shell, the speckcles temple of music. it is part of the landmark designed and constructed in 2899. this inspired -- 1899 everything it is sandstone and features cultural. in the restoration project it included strengthening, new concrete slabs at the lower end of the stages and wood risers to the upper stage area. the item before you today is a

project sponsored by the city and county of san francisco recreation and parks department. the project proposes the installation of temporary el ments and permanent improvements to the temple of music. a nine foot wide stage constructed of plywood. the extension will include seven floor mounted up rights with two 22-foot tall poles for audio spokekers and 24 light fixtures. it including noncontributing wood risers added in 1994 and construction of new marine grade rise certains with 34 light fixtures. the project sponsor intends to perform deferred maintenance. the installation will begin march 2020 with scheduled opening date of april 4, 2020.

the temporary installations will be removed after two years. in addition to the scope items the project sponsor proposes to attach illuminated text. at the time of application the sponsor provided only concept level designs for the item. the applicant is eager to move forward and requested the commission consider approving the signage installation as part of the larger scope package. if installed the signs would be temporary and removed in marc march 2022. as mentioned the proposed scope is part of the golden gate park's 150th birthday celebration. they intend to start construction by end of february or beginning of march with scheduled opening date

april 4th. recreation and parks department will be managing use of the band shell and issues permits according to permitting guidelines. according to the performance permits will be allowed for amplified sounds up to five hours per day. on days without permits it will be lit from sunset to parks closing. they requested temporary items such as stage extension, lighting and audio extension and illuminated text sign for the one year celebration. they are proposing an additional year for the ongoing use and enjoyment of the public. they are proposing to remove temporary elements by the end of march 2022. staff has determined that the proposed work with the recommended conditions will be

in conformance with article 10 of the planning code. the proposal to construct the stage extension with lighting system with remove of noncontributing wood risers will not result in a significant alteration of the concourse or temple of music. staff find that the proposed project when maintained and support the existing use of the subject building as public performance space. furthermore the project will not result in permanent alteration of contributing elements or futures of the land park. staff has not evaluated the proposed design for illuminated signs for conformance however staff believes if the sign is is temporarily attached in the manner sensitive to the building, then it, too, needs

article 10 of the manning code. based on this analysis staff recommends approval with following conditions. one. project sponsor following recreation and parks department standard construction measures to ensure protection of elements that characterize the landmark 249. two, that portions of the subject project that are identified as temporary will be in operation for a period not to exceed two years starting april 4, 2020. all temporary elements including stage extension, light and audio extensions will be removed by the end of march 2022. the site will be fully restored to existing condition or better. three, when temporary elements are removed in march 2022, all patching shall match historic material and come poseeings design texture and finish and

based on accurate duplication of features. all work to be performed by qualified trade contractor with no less than seven years successful experience in repair and restoration of masonry materials. four. prior to issuance of the architectural addendum the plans will be forwarded to review and approval by planning department preservation staff. given the expedited schedule, staff would like to propose revised language for the fifth condition. previous language stated prior to issuance the building assessment report and plan will be submitted for review and approval by planning preservation staff. all approved items will meet the secretary of interior standards for treatment of historic properties completed within one year of approval date. staff proposed to uncouple

assessment report from the addendum. new language for condition five reads sponsor will submit building conditions assessment report and proposed plan for review and approval by staff. the items will meet the standards for treatment of historic properties completed within one year of today's date february 19, 2021. the final condition of approval addresses design requirements and guidelines for the installation of ililluminated text. this reads. that is project sponsor provided concept designs for the proposed illuminated signage. planning staff will review and approve the final design details through a separate permit. minimum design requirements for staff approval include field verification of mortar joint, point of attachments secured to

mortar joints only, design coaches reviewed and analyzed by architectural conservation specialist to meet or exceed the secretary of interior qualification standards. all work to be performed by qualified contractor no less than seven years experience, all work will conform with the secretary of interior standards for treatment of historic properties. all signage temporary to be removed by end of march 2022. all patching performed by qualified trade contractor and shall match the historic material and composition design color texture finish and shall be based on accurate duplication of features. this concludes my presentation. stacy from recreation and parks department is here to present briefly on the project. i along with colleague the environmental planning division

are here and will be available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, michelle. good afternoon, commissioners, i am stacy bradley, deputy director of planning with recreation and parks department. we are excited to bring this before you today. golden gate park as you know and since i was here recently, it is a very magical place and we are excited to celebrate 150th anniversary. on april 4, 2 4, 1870 they havea

place to reconnect with the natural world. with over 1,000-acre, we are able to share many different elements of the park experience with our residents. within this boundary people come together for small and large occasions including the 1906 earthquake, summer of lover or for annual converts and events as well as birthday parties, picnics and hikes. in 2020 we intend to celebrate the joy and magic of this fresher past, present and future with projects like this one throughout the park. the band shell is within the eastern portion of golden gate park, located between the

california academy of science. we have done outreach and engagement for this project along with the effort of the golden gate park 150th starting a couple years ago but most recently we had in september we showed plans for the band shell activation and to a large neighborhood focus meeting with approximately 100 in at attendance. we included outreach with neighborhood groups and stakeholders. the project is generally supported by those we have shown it to. golden gate park is the most frequent user of the band shell and they are supportive of the project. earlier itterration was included with the environmental review application shown in the bottom right. it has evolved to be modified

and focus on the performerings and highlighting the interior of the band shell and replacing the risers, which is exciting for us. the project does include in kind grant of renovated risers and speaker system and lighting for performances to help the band shell enhance use of the performance space and make it more accessible to smaller performers. we want to thank van davis and illuminate for the plans for the 1992 earthquake repair and seismic strengthening of the band shell. that provides us with a easy to access plans of the band shell, which we did not have before. we had to go to -- it was quite a challenge to find these plans.

it is really nice we now have them digital leann we can share them across the department. we don't be have to find the hard copy or poorly scanned. the project is also replacing the risers and the electrical outlets. they were identified in the condition assessment under taken with the consultant team in 2017. that report identified the building in good condition and the electrical outlets are in need of renewal. it does include the replacement of outlets. we are undertake the assessment report to identify any other deferred maintenance for the site. we will implement the improvements to meet the secretary of interior standards. i will hand the presentation over to ben davis to give you more from his perspective.

>> i am ben davis, founder and ceo of the non-profit arts association illuminate. we will create impossible work of public art. we had the honor and privilege of working on very significant spaces in san francisco with a deep historical context of the city including 1.8 miles of the bay bridge where the bay lights are part of san francisco. it includes working most recently for the grace light in the cathedral. in everything we work on we start from a historical perspective. we work with the architecture of the city. history is the first place we start. in our best we create a line from history to the present moment to bring these pieces of

infrastructure, sometimes we bring them to cultural relevancy, which is the best medicine for preservation over time. to call them into relevant usage. we have been honored to work on the temple of music in golden gate park. i have spent two years there every spare moment in the early morning and late evenings to get a read of the space and understand the structure. michelle taylor and the team have been amazing to work with. she did a great job of describing the project. let me take you through what we are looking at doing in the space. you can see here the old and proposed. those old risers added in the 1990s are a little bit de bad ad we will replace them. you will see the curved stage

that is more consistent with oakernal design of the concourse from 1990 -- from the 1900s. for somebody who spent time here and talked to james mccormick, the keeper of the space. there is a little hiding hole buy the stage door that someone sleeps in and makes a mess in. the design removes that public hazard to create a cleaner space and nicer design. you can see at the front of the stage on the bottom there the augmentation that includes the temporary lighting and sound system we are looking to bring in. this is significant to the structure andy sign. it is to create a performance space. part of the music concourse indicates we should have music there. this is to make it accessible to a larger group of performers and

local folks in san francisco. i want to say that if you look at the front of the light extensions there is a couple of cal64 sound speakers with subwooferrers. these train the sound in a certain direction. the sound will not be particularly allowed. this is for intimate performance, mid-size. not for big performance. if a big performance comes in that will require a different augmentation of the space. it is a very respectful space in the tenor of 1900 intentions of the temple of music. stepping back further you can see the current conditions down below and the proposed conditions above. >> you are over your time. >> let me wrap up. >> my apologies. let me touch quickly.

these beautiful five words from the san francisco civil rights leader harvey milk. these will bring energy to the space to help it become iconic as people photograph it and bring gra vitas. >> every measurement is cataloged and the plan is revised to be sure we have a safe approach to touching the building through mortar joints only and the augmentation and light and sound system and sign above are reversible. with that i say thank you. >> no speaker cards. >> any comments from the commission before i ask for public comment? any member of the public wish to

make public comment at this time? >> good afternoon. i am john cunningham director of the aids memorial in golden gate park. i speak in support of the sponsor and my confidence in san francisco recreation and parks department to navigate this project. parks, arts, culture, community and bringing it altogether in nature i believe the one of the most powerful responsibility we as citizens have and you as commissioners have. this is an opportunity, i believe, to bring back the community to what has been, i believe, a space that has fallen into disrepair, and that the sponsor is stepping forward to help to not only restore but during this 150th anniversary to bring the public back to the space. for myself and my family there

were many moments of tradition in this space. opera in the park or times with swing lesson in the space. however, it has fallen into silence. as harvey milk's quote hope will never be silent speaks. this is an opportunity to create andrew and bring the public, the families to the space to create that tradition to carry forward. the national aids memorial over the last 30 years we have been in the park have had the tradition of bringings community together with music through flagging and other opportunities to draw the spirit of san francisco together. i speak in support for this. i do not feel that having these small intimate gatherings of music on that concourse are not counter but enhance the purpose

and enhance the responsibility of the park to bring arts and citizens together. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak in favor of this project as an active member of the golden gate park band for the past 23 years and for the past -- recently retire from the san francisco ballet orchestra where i performed for 40 years. i am very happy member of the golden gate park band. the proposed improvements, i think, will definitely improve the safety for the band in negotiating the scares, which are in disrepair, the current risers. the new risers will focus more attention toward the conductor which is an important part of what we do. i think the sound and lighting

enhancement will improve the contact that we have, any performance, but especially our band with the audience. i speak in favor of it whole heartedly. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am bonnie. i work with about 5 fiscal -- 35 group in the northern part of the city. golden gate park is part of my area. these groups transform parks and public spaces. you can't emphasize enough the positive impact this project will have in the city. enhancing and highlighting the temple of music and bringing it into 21st century and introducing new generations to the temple of music as they also contribute to the golden gate

park 150th and beyond. we don't have enough outdoor accessible and affordable performance spaces in the city. by bringing in lighting and sound into the temple of music we will be able to make it more accessible to a larger range of groups across the city. people mentioned the fact that especially i think of school kids, families, small performance groups who don't have there kind of access and who now will. even though this is a temporary measure, it will enhance memories. who knows what will evolve after that? i can speak to the pleasure of working with the friends of the golden gate park band with the annual june live festival of band music. it would be great if they could continue into the evening with additional sound and lighting. i will close by saying there is something magical about the

temple of music and the concourse. there is nothing better to sit there to see all of these people, a diverse range of ages, sizes, shapes, all sitting and enjoying such a beautiful performance space outside. i hope this will be a gift that keeps on giving. >> good afternoon, commissioners. catherine howard friends of the music concourse. let me say we appreciate the proposed 19 spotlights have been removed from the to top of the d shell. this lighting was not appropriate to this elegant structure or golden gate park. we are still concerned about the other additional band shell lighting and sound systems. in the master plan the document

written by rec and park lights is to be limited overall in the music concourse. the map on the overhead shows the only areas that may be lighted under rec and park's guidelines and the band shell is not one of them. the reason for the temporary lighting and sound is one yearlong 150th celebration. the systems are proposed for two years. if it should be removed after two years, it is also not belonging there after one year celebration. upon inquiry about the reason for two years, we were informed the performers needed time to get used to the wealth equipment. a better plan would be to hold

training. after two years they will get used to seeing and hearing the new equipment at the new band shell. you will have a large crowd back here demanding like the instagram moments with the ferris wheel to continue these intrusive elements. i did ask about monitoring of the sound because this is a concern not only of our group but the many environmental groups that weighed in. the park rangers will monitor use of the equipment. the fact is that the park rangers do not interfere with sound levels in the park. this is evidenced by the many park converts during which neighborhoods regularly vibrate with over amplified music. we urge you to either deny the certificate of appropriate for the projector limit the time to

one year for the alleged goal which is the anniversary celebration. i am submitting new letters from friends of the music concourse and the sierra club to this effect. >> any other member of the public that wishes to make public comment? >> bringing it back to the commission. commissioners. >> commissioner foley. >> i think it is great what they are doing here. i think restoring the property back is going to be super-amazing. i think that illuminate if you look at the work they have done and how they treat the things they illuminate is pretty spectacular. i don't know if anybody has been to the grace cathedral, it is

stunning considering that is an amazing structure inside that building. we have to enjoy things more. we have to have kids out there in music and enjoy each other. i think that part of this is a lot of little things to be worked out between the department and parks and rec. i do trust the planning staff to work all of these details out in a very productive way. thank you. >> commissioner black. >> yes. i want to appreciate staff putting the information forward. i have to say my understanding of this project was definitely improved and facilitated by a number of the speakers from different groups.

i am sensitive to moving this thing on. the celebration starts soon. it is an exciting celebration and i am looking forward to it. i really appreciate the evolution of this plan especially in focusing the lighting on the performance as opposed to lighting for its own right in this particular location. i have to say my initial reaction to the lighted signage on the structure i found really jarring until i understood better what the message was. i think that is okay, too. i still don't understand the two year request so i was hoping somebody could -- someone from staff could address that directly. >> two year versus one year? >> i am sorry, two years versus

one year. there was a lot of attention at the last hearing. it will go away. it is an outside vendor. >> that's right. for this one what we are hoping for is that people can use it and it tacks time to book performances to get it in the rotation, to have them know about it. we want to make sure we are giving them enough time to book and experience this activation. we are hoping that over the year people know about it, learn about it, then we have the extra year to allow for continued use and to see how this goes and make sure people can enjoy it. >> commissioner pearlman.

>> for those here when we talked about the ferris wheel. this is a far cry from that. i think this is -- my question about the two years was the opposite. not why limited to one year, but if this is such a special place and if you are going to have lighting that is directly over the shell and sown that is intimate and is controlled in terms of time of day and time of use, it seems like why not activate the park forever? why do we limit to two years. your explanation to say that performers have to get used to it. why? if you are going to take it away. it doesn't matter they get used to it, it is not going to be there the next time they come. i am going the other way and saying this seems like an excellent improvement of the use of this. of course, it wasn't

there in 1899 because we didn't light things that way. we are in 21st century, and we use things in a very different way. given our lifestyles to have something when the sun goes down at 5 oat 5:00 in the winter when february is like a summer month in san francisco, why not have things going to 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 at night to increase the use of the park. that is one piece. i do appreciator the elimination of the kleg lights. i am in a different mind about the sign. it is jarring. i did know where it came from. i think it is not appropriate. i don't think having words there

activators the space. it is the music and visual of being there that words won't get people here. the choice of this particular phrase rather than a different phrase, you know, why did you land on this one? there are probably thousands of sayings that could be up there. i don't see how it enhances the project in any way and it is completely unrelated to music. i don't feel the sign is appropriate. i would advocate for the sign not being there. just the questions about the changes of the conditions. it talked about the building condition report being due a year out. i am wondering why a year out? why not three months from now?

>> sorry for the change in wording there. we had originally asked when they submit the building permit they submit the condition assessment report. we would ask they submit it sooner than later. all of the work would be performed within the one year. >> one other question. it is talking about all of this removed by march 2022. that would include any restoration work everything done by march of 2022. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> i agree with commissioner pearlman about the sign. i think it adds a certain tackiness best not added. it is not on offensive i would

make it a condition, but i do think whoever fought that ought to have rethought it. on the issue of the two years. i got from one of the objections people might get used to it and might like it. then therefore we shouldn't allow it for two years. that is the rather sophisticated wording of not in my backyard. if people get used to it and like it, well, maybe the people auto enjoy it. it is only for two years. two years is an appropriate time to have fun with this thing. who know somewhat will happen in two years.

i i would like to join the friends of the concourse or whatever the proper name is and i think other people, too, saying the up lights were best eliminated. i think that that is enhanced the project. as far as the other thing those can be worked out as commissioner foamily said. i very much support this project. >> i have a few questions, ms. taylor. what is the life of the reisters that will be coming in. >> repeat. >> life of the risers. the plywood is outdoor grade, to be maintained by rec park. the wantings there now have been thing a few decades. they are intentionally using

outdoor grade. >> i don't know if the commissioners are interested in entertaining a revision of what is proposed in the draft motion or are ready to make a motion as is in. >> can i ask a question about that? >> i don't know what people feel about the sign. there are two of us that expressed. i don't know if there is a consensuggestion whether we mudvey move that from the coa. >> i am asking the other commissioners here. >> thanking we could discuss the sign a little further. >> there is discussion bu about removing this from the particular motion. >> i would advocate to remove the sign. i would like to know what the other three commissioners think

about that. >> i have a question for the project sponsor regarding the sign. >> would the project sponsor come up. >> here is my question. it seems like for different performances you might want a different size. could up put with lighting superimpose a digital project on the bandstand above and have a different message depending upon the season, festival, music. >> there may be a way to do that. technology can be amazing. that is no not the intention. the intention is to augment the structure itself. the bay lights, we added a quarter inch to the skin. it brought it back into the

cultural consciousness. which are historic words, for the two year installation they are visible in the daytime. the consistency rather than a changeable line. we want the graph i take the gre uplift. from the flu line from the great history to this moment in which we are now where hope is very, very powerful angmess commodity. i the dew leave it is rill vaunts to not just, -- relevant to not just theater but to dance and poetry. that adds to the performers on the stage. >> i have a question about not

so much the wording of the sign but when it is removed. i know that you have various plans in place. i wonder if we need a removal plan to be added, to have the planning staff make sure they review and approve the removal plan. >> i think that would be a reasonable condition absolutely. one of the conditions were so extensive was to address those issues, to make sure it was removed in the appropriate way and that no damage happened to the fence. i think adding that. >> should we go with approving the sign we would ask of add that condition.

>> adding a removal plan. >> it an an it appears it is ie jointing so there would be no holes drilled in the stone. >> that is one of our requirements. >> it wouldn't be that hard to that it is a mortar project. >> we would absolutely require it. >> we want the mortar used the appropriate color and strength. >> we have the outstanding question whether this chris would like to include or continue to keep in the motion for lighting or to remove that. >> the three of us came back on here again. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i want be to respond to the

gentleman from illuminate. the lighting on the bay bridge is spectacular and so highlights every fibertha holds those cables together. that project celebrates the actual structure of the bay bridge. in this case i disagree because i think that the wording up there completely discontracts from looking at this beautiful classical building. it is one of the structures in san francisco, like a pavillian structure that is like a greek tellingpel form. having the modern lit sign with words on it completely distracts from the architecture as opposed to enhancing it. >> i disagree.

i always disagree. an my daughter is an artist. i am not an artist. i don't understand what a lot of artists create, but i enjoy the art. i am not an artist. i think the vision what they brought here is one large vision. i support that large vision and the artthey are trying to create. i think the sign is okay. i am not going to disagree with you again. >> commissioner johns. >> two points. i forgot to mention that we have had the conservatory lipped for some time at night, and i think that is pleasant. the other thing is having listened to all of this, i continue to think that the

commissioner nail man snailed it on the sign. i say we approve this for two years and with the proviso for the condition there is no sign. >> commissioner black. >> i am once again persuaded by my fellow commissioners, of which i am tore. that leads me to be attorney because i think your point is valider. this is the artistic vision and this has been fought through at great length. i also am very persuaded by the notion that this sign, and harvey milk was an incredibly

important person in the history of san francisco and his message is important to remember forever, but i do see this particular sign being distracting and being -- i think distracting during a performance. if i were a newly-seated person in the audience, i would wonder why the bright sign. i think part of it has to do with the fact the sign is lighted. it just scent seem to be necessary to me to be lighted at all. i am going to fall on the side of commissioners johns. i just feel strongly that we don't need this message. >> is that a second. >> i will second it.

>> if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion seconded. shall i call the question? >> yes. >> on that motion to approve this certificate with conditions as amended eliminating the sign commissioner black. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 5-0. >> i think that was the final thing for the agenda. we are adjourned. thank you.

>> just a little pack of pad located at the bottom of russian hill, the secret garden with an intimate and captivating appeal. carefully tucked away, at the bottom of lumbar street, the park makes the top of our list for the most intimate picnic setting. avoid all tourist cars by hopping on the cable car. or the 30, 45, 41 or 91 bus. this is the place to tell someone something special or the place to declare to friends and family the commitment you two share. reservations are available with rec and park for this adorable

>> 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,