tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 18, 2018 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
the whole thing. it's not very accessible. in my opinion, it doesn't add much character to my community, the community that i run, walk, bike in every day. the plans that i've seen for the new development have much more open space, much more public space. and i agree with the committee's recommendation this does not meet historical significance. i went to a college with a very historically significant 1950s architecture library, lots of people came to it every day. i went to unr, and it no longer exists on campus. it was a great building and something we memorialized. but it also didn't reach historical significance. people came from around the country to see it, and if that doesn't meet historical significance, i'm suspect this building does not. i never see when i walk by people flooding the park or the
green spaces around it. it looks like private property. it does not look like something that the public would use. in contrast to the development proposed which would provide housing, childcare and public spaces to the community, i think this would be a much more valuable use of space. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, laura clark, pro-housing advocate. and i want to sort of draw attention to the potential of the body that we really creating a bad precedent. because if we are really talking about preserving an important example of suburban corporate property, like maybe we shouldn't. suburbanization was a bad thing. we should not have been suburbanizing san francisco. and we should not suburbanize
san francisco going forward. we're a city. we need to thrive. we need our community to become denser and vibrant and have more people have opportunities to create more historical events in these communities. the city needs to grow. and that does mean change. and we should preserve things of true historical relevance. and it was a little interesting to hear about the history of the insurance company. maybe not that interesting. i don't know how you all feel about the education we had about a particular insurance company. but i think that there are far more historical events that have happened in san francisco. there are far more beautiful and worthy of preservation buildings. and if we're talking about preserving a style of campus where people are doing car centric living, that is something we need to be walking away from. and i mean walking. we need people to be walking
away from car-centric investment. we need them to get into buses, transit and moving around our city in new ways. we cannot be preserving a car-centric infrastructure anymore and i hope this body takes that goal seriously. that this is a new way of being, so that new events can take place, so that people can find opportunity here. we have built -- we had had eight jobs for every one unit of housing over the past ten years. there is a going to be a mixed use community here that has potential to thrive and change and grow. and that's a good thing, too. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment? seeing and hearing none, we close public comment. commissioners, i would like to remind you that we are seeing a national register nomination. for members of the public, this is not a local landmark designation, this is recommendation that this body may or may not make to the state
office of historic preservation regarding this property being placed on the national register. the matter before us is consideration of this item. it is not the consideration of the proposed project which will be before us in a few months. not sure of the timing. so this is the case that we have before us. commissioners? >> i will throw in one thing that i learned in the nomination, of interest to me, this building was completed in 1957, two years before the crown building was complete. which is interesting, because we think of that as our first modern high rise or office building and so this building actually predated it by a few years.
>> commissioner johnck: i think this is really kind of ironic. as a new member of arc, commission hyland was there that day and commission pearlman, we were doing a great job of reviewing the adequacy of the presentation alternatives for the project. and they were good. they were great. and we were looking at the value of the historic -- not only historic buildings, but the historic landscape and the integration of that as significant in the integration of those elements. and we asked the owner and the project sponsor to go back and do a better job on that and give us a little more attention to particularly, i was interested in the landscape. and the relationship to the
building. so i think we've already got a wonderful process going on. and i did not hear anything that -- of convincing to lend this to national register status. i mean, if anything, we should be looking at something local first or even eligibility, so to me, this is shock value. it's too shocking to -- i didn't hear anything really convincing to enable me to support a national register. nomination. so that's my initial thought. >> commissioner black: yes, hi. when i moved to san francisco about 30 years ago i happened to be in this part of town and hit the bricks when i saw this property. as an architectural historian, i think it's a really good example of what was happening in mid
century corporate architecture. really, an early example of the corporate campuses we're seeing in silicon valley today, where there is strong planned spaces outdoors for people to use, you can imagine a meeting space out there. and so i think it's a really good example of this type. having said that, i strongly believe that this is a good site for housing. i do see that as something that is going to happen on this property. my understanding is that -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- is that the ceqa process has
already determined the value of this as a resource. and the mitigation measures in my understanding would not increase by national nomination register determination. that there would be no time or cost delay if this were put -- if we were to recommend registered approval. >> that is our understanding as well, conversely, as the final decision is really up to the state commission and the keeper of the national register, they may or may not take this body's comments into consideration as well and move forward with the nomination as planned. >> thank you, commission johns. >> commissioner johns: looking at this, i don't feel as strongly as you do on the other hand, i don't feel as strongly as you do either.
if i were to describe this application, i would say it is thin. it is really thin. i think that probably i would go along with the staff's report and recommendation. but it is hard for me to get particularly excited about. now, i would just like to say that each of us undoubtedly has our own feelings about the -- on the subject of housing in san francisco. but i don't think those feelings are particularly pertinent to what we're supposed to do today. so i think that i would say this barely skates by. i agree with the staff recommendation. >> thank you am . other commissioners, any
comments? is there a motion? >> >> commissioner johns: i move that we approve the staff recommendation. two of the things, the typos and grammar have been corrected. ok, fine. and there was some other thing that was addressed and corrected, too. ok, so. >> we have a motion and a second. >> president wolfram: very good, commissioners, on that motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution in support of the nomination subject to revisions of the national historic places. [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. we'll place this on item 8, 6301 third street. this is a landmark designation.
can i have the projector or the laptop, please, sorry. good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith, planning department staff. the next item before you is consideration to recommend landmark designation of the arthur h. coleman center, 6301 third street. it was nominated by dr. walker of true hope church through a community sponsored application. 6301 third street is significant for its association with dr. arthur coleman, a nationally
prominent african-american lawyer, physician and influential health care and social rights advocate. he purchased an empty parcel to construct a medical facility to serve bayview residents. opening in 1960, the coleman medical center reflected the popular architectural styles of the period. he recruited a team of african-american physicians to join him in providing comprehensive health to the low-income african-american residents. he was a local pioneer in the health center movement that ban began in the 1960s. he worked to achieve racial equity in the health care profession and advocated for the bayview african-american community. since our last hearing, during which this nomination was first presented to you, some minor
revisions were made, including photographs and editing and formatting changes, the content that was added was added to the section fighting for equity within the medical profession, civil rights activist and community leader and hunters point bayview community services. a floor plan illustrating the spaces as the ordinance was added and that can be found on page 31. per your request, we clarified that the material of window and door frames is aluminum and the character defining feature section of both the designation report have been updated to reflect the changes. one additional revision that staff would like for you to consider today, to change the description of the stair to be more specific. right now it says open stair. and so we would like to propose that it reads straight run stair, second floor landing configuration.
the reason for that is the materials of the stair are not the historic materials. so we just want to be specific in the ordinance that it's the location, the configures ration of the stair in the open lobby and not the actual materials. another reason for that, you may recall in the last hearing, the tenants, which is hunters point bayview clinic intend to paint a mural commemorating the history and legacy of dr. coleman and the medical center on the stairs. and so in order to make that process easy for them and not require for them to paint that those, it's non-historic material, the stairs. that's one consideration we'd like for you to look at today. and the department has received two letters in support of designation and those are included in the packet.
the nomination is also supported by supervisor cohen. and the property also meets the hpc priorities for dezzing i niagara nation. which -- designation. and those with strong cultural or ethnic associations. the department recommends that the hpc recommend designation as an article 10 landmark. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to speak? you're not obligated, but if you're here and wish to speak, we would love to hear you. >> good afternoon,
commissioners, i'm pastor of true hope in bayview. on the 12th of this month, i celebrated 50 years in pastoral ministry. i'm still there, but retiring. i thought i'd float it out. the preliminary recommendation adopted a revolution to support the nomination subject to revision of the national register of historic place. the subject property is significant for its association with dr. arthur coleman, african-american lawyer, physician, influence, health care and civil rights advocate. i was a patient of dr. coleman for several years prior to him
deceasing. and i am 86 years old, so 30, 40 years ago i went to see dr. coleman as my primary physician, he asked me, what are you doing? because you don't look like your age. at that time, maybe i've changed. but he told me that. at that time, i said, dr. coleman, i do power walking one hour, four days a week. my wife put a lot of pressure on me, said you're going to have to start eating proper and i did that. she got me walking. so in time, he was deceased several years ago, i'm still here and going strong. so one of the disturbing and great and noble -- as a matter of fact, since coming here and
bringing this to you, i'm not really studied deep in depth all the contribution that dr. coleman made. all of you know that asthma, cancer, at one time, there is still problems because of all of the toxic throughout the air, the shipyard and all of that. but with man like that, making such a sacrifice. [bell ringing] i'm looking at the future population with the type of person like this, would be encouragement and inspiration to future generations. i definitely applaud you, for the last time i was here, how you voted in reference to this project. i want to thank you very, very much. i was willing to sit there a long time. >> [laughter] thank you and we appreciate it. thank you for your patience sitting through the previous items. does any other member of the
public want to speak? hearing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner johns: well, as baffling as the last one was, this is the opposite end of the spectrum, this is what i would call meritorious beefy project. so i propose that we move it along on its road to be designated. >> secretary. >> great, a motion and second. >> commissioner black: for all the reasons that i supported the legacy business, i completely support this project. i think it has the association with dr. coleman going strongly and it's a fabulous building with amazing intact elements which are miraculously still there. so i strongly support it. >> clerk: i think we have a motion and a second.
>> president wolfram: we do. on that motion, then commissioners to approve the landmark dez -- >> one moment, we have -- >> i think the mike is on, i wanted to reiterate the motion is with the proposed amendment that the staff brought up about the stairs? we should be specific about that so we can prepare it for the board. thank you. >> president wolfram: very good, commissioners. the motion was with the staff modification regarding the stairs. on that motion commissioner black? [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, we have already heard item 9 which will place us on the final item 10. mills act program. for your review and comment.
>> good afternoon, commission, shannon ferguson, planning department staff. the item before you today is a review and discussion of proposed modifications to the mills act program. enacted in 1972, the mills act legislation allows owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in rehabilitation to receive property tax relief. owners enter into a 10-year contract with the city and contracts are automatically renewed each year. contracts transfer to subsequent owners as well. property owners agree to rehabilitate their property.
san francisco adopted the mills act program in 1996. in 2012, the process was made more predictable and affordable for applicants. the city holds 31 contracts with the largest number in the park district. these are a few of the representative contracts. they range from single-family homes, apartment buildings to commercial and retail buildings. during the 2017 mills act application cycle, the government audience and oversight committee had several comments and concerns regarding the program, including more property owners should be able to take advantage of the mills act. several properties that applied had eviction history. several properties had already completed rehabilitation work without the benefit of the mills act. and it appeared that the work would have been completed regardless of whether the mills act contract was entered into. the scopes of work proposed in the mills act contract should
already be reviewed by planning and hpc before it's give ton the board and it should be executed when there is preservation need and terminated when there is no more need. the contract term limit should be considered. reflecting these concerns, they approved three 10-year rolling contracts and three contracts limited to a 10-year term. legislation to terminate the limited term contracts will be introduced in a few months. two of the contracts were not approved. in response to the concerns and the hpc request, staff developed modifications to the mills act program that may allow for better alignment with the intent of the program. staff developed the program to determine best practices.
currently, all qualified historic properties or those designated at the local state or national level are eligible to apply for the contract and be considered. with this proposed amendment, qualified historic properties must also meet priority consideration criteria in order to be considered for the mills act contract. all the applications would be reviewed on the merits of the criteria to ensure high quality applications are forwarded. and that the applications would meet or exceed the requirements of the mills act program and individualized and prioritized preservation. so the first priority consideration would be necessity. this would require that the additional financial incentive to help ensure preservation of the property. this would establish that the property is in danger of deterioration and in need of
substantial rehabilitation. properties with previous violations for deferred maintenance would not meet the criteria. the second is investment. the project will be built in substantial additional private investment in the property, other than for routine maintenance. this may be seismic retrofitting, and restoration work. this would establish that the owner is committed to investing in the restoration, rehabilitation of the property. the next is distinctiveness. the project would have a property that is especially deserving of a contract due to the exceptional nature. the fourth is that the project will preserve a property where a legacy business refugee -- legacy business is located. this would say that the owner is committed to preserving the property.
and finally, the last would be recently designated city landmarks. currently eligibility is limited to properties that have been designated on or before december 31 or the year before the mills act application is made. with this proposed amendment, existing requirements remain the same, but the time frame for designation would change. so that the mills act contract and the designation would be filed concurrently. this would expand the eligibility to more property owners and give incentive to seek historic preservation. ohp has stated that other municipalities allow for a similar parallel process. the first four priority consideration criteria changes could be made at the staff level, while the last criteria consideration recently designated landmarks would require a change the
administrative code. properties with outstanding violations or outstanding enforcement issues would not be eligible for the mills act contract. all violations must be corrected before the application is accepted or processed. this proposed policy amendment addresses concerns raised by the gao committee and this change can be made at the staff level. since the goal of the mills act is to provide an incentive for rehabilitation, restoration and preservation, requiring minimum scopes of work, such as seismic work, accessibility and life safety improvements would ensure that all properties that hold a mills act contract receive a minimum standard of rehabilitation. other scopes beyond those minimum scopes of work may still qualify after discussion of the board of supervisors or the hpc. this is a policy change that can
be made at the staff level also. the current mills act application allows property owners to include scopes of work that were completed in the last year. the change would require that scopes of work not be completed before the contract in effect. this would demonstrate the need for the tax benefit. if the owner was able to successfully complete their project without the financial subsidy, there doesn't seem to be established need for granting a mills act contract if they've already completed their scope of work. this change reinforces that the mills act contract is an incentive program and this policy change can also be made at the staff level. and the next proposed amendment requires that rehabilitation and
restoration work be completed during the first ten years of the contract. this addresses the need for the contract and fulfills the property owner conditions of the contract. and go en, it's a poll -- again, it's a policy change that can be made in the staff level. and finally, to address the goa committee concerns, this amendment proposes that a certificate of appropriateness for scopes of work identified in the first three years of the contract must be filed and approved during the mills act application process. all remaining permits and entitlements and scopes of work beyond the first three years, must be secured and completed prior to the end of the 10-year contract. this prioritizes certain scopes of work and demonstrates to the city that the property owner is committed to rehabilitating the property and again, this is policy change that can be made at the staff level. so based on hpc discussion today, the staff will work with the city attorney and
legislative team, ngo committee on a framework for any amendments and any amendments will return to the hpc for review and comment before approval. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> at this time, we'll take public comment. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. i will jump in with a few comments or questions. so on page 5 of the staff report, under this b, qualifying scopes of work, the way it's written implies it would have to include a through k, but i think the intent is to include some of the items, not an all ininclusive list, so that would be a language thing. the other thing on page 6, i have concern, it's almost like a conflict between items 2 and 4. one hand we're saying that you can't do the work before you get
the contract because it shows that you maybe don't need the tax benefit. on the other hand we're saying you have to spend all this money hiring architect, and paying the fees to get your project approved, but you might not get the mills act contract. then what happened? you're saying that you need mills act, but then you're force people to apply for it, but what if they can't do the project because they need the mills act? it's a catch-22 situation right here that seems unfair to property owners. and the mills act takes a lot of time and work and you're forcing property owners to spend a lot of fees in process all at the same time. >> commissioners, that's a great question. department staff. we are certainly amenable to some modification or just have a
discussion about it. to give you background on where this came from, there is really two things driving it. maybe they are more separate now thinking about it than they appear to be. one was a reoccurring comment we've heard from the board of supervisors, specifically gao committee, of see ago completed project come in, clearly there is no financial need, you were able to finance the project without the mills act, why should we engage in a contract? the second was, just this past year, there was a project -- or there was a property that applied for mills act, they had a c of a on file with the department and it was for a very large edition and members of the committee raised the concern of, well, if they're going to propose this large addition, even if it meets the standards, is this really the restoration
of a property in the spirit of the mills act? so they felt, well, why don't we hold off on that one, see if the c of a is issued or not and then we can visit whether a mills act is warranted. so in some cases it's to promote a preservation project, or restoration project and in other cases it's also to ensure that the financial need is actually there. so there may be a way to tweak this, and we can come back to with another idea unless you have suggestions now. we thought if somebody would at least file for the scopes of work we know they're going to have to do in the first three years, even if it is simple as window replacement or restoration, at least we could show everybody there is a compliment to follow through on the work -- commitment to follow through on the work and they'll have entitlement in hand.
>> right now, that seems a little -- then they might not get the mills act. oh, we're not doing it this year. >> that's true. it is a voluntary program. i know that could be a deterrent. and we've had applicants worry about that, especially applicants that are good stewards of their property and said, well, i've done all the right things, there is nothing left to fix and it's put us in an awkward position. wanting to be supportive of the preservation incentive, but also not being able to show the board that there is a meaningful public benefit from issuing the contract. >> commissioner hyland: i'm a little confused. i think that the impetus behind this was because of the
applicants who have violations or evictions and that sort of thing. and i have a specific issue with number 2, and that is the scope of work may not be completed prior to approval. i think that the spirit of the mills act is not by financial need. it's an incentive to restore these historic structures. and the irony is is that the majority of the current contracts were done in the triangle historic district which was a reward or incentive to make that a historic district and basically a reward for those who had already restored their properties. and if we have to go through this long process, it could take a couple of years just to get it through the process. the coa and the approvals before us. it would not be incentive.
so i would propose, i don't know, i know this came from the goa, right? >> i mean, again, the comment is -- i feel like it was very clear, if we show up with an application for a fully rehabilitated building, they're likely not to approve it. unless there are other extenuating circumstances that warrant that. so, one of the sort of ways to mitigate that, in working with the city attorney, we felt that by allowing for landmark designation and mills act concurrently, we'll at least be able to target the areas where folks are saying there is lot of great building in the bayview or excelsior, why aren't they eligible? here a property owner could landmark their property and capture the mills act and move through the process at the same
time. we were hoping there would be a little bit of mitigation in that. in that regard. but it is a difficult question. i will point out that ms. ferguson did essentially, in her conversations with ohp and looking at the way los angeles administers its program, these priority areas, necessity, distinctiveness, et cetera, those all come directly from the los angeles model. so we feel like there is precedent for that. and then there is certainly wide discretion in how a building achieves or meets one of those categories. that this commission could determine. >> i mean, i think, i agree with those items. i just think some of these procedural things may be a deterrent. >> commissioner johns: i do agree with your comments and they worried me, too.
i don't think we should load up this process with requirements that make it financially difficult for people to apply. because then they won't. they'll just -- they just won't do it and we will have shot ourselves in the foot. the other thing -- and maybe this is kind of related -- in san francisco, sometimes we get our policies that are designed to work in one area confused with other areas. and policies that are maybe thought to be desirable or necessary in the rent control area, and to punish landlords who do certain things, that may have legitimate scope overover in the rent control area, but i
think we have to be real careful when we start to apply them to another area, like preservation, because they may then inhibit preserving buildings. just because somebody has been kicked out. and so we've got to really be careful to make sure that we tailor any requirements or -- any requirements or policies that we get into in the mills act area, just to those that will further our goals under the mills act. so when you think about this, i know it's very difficult line to tread, but i do think you want to be real careful. >> thank you >> commissioner johnck: when i first read the staff report, i thought these are good
solutions, these are good remediation for what i saw as the problem, but hearing this discussion so far, i'm thinking, you know, i really don't know. all we know is there is laws and how broken is this? we know this was not approved. and the violations, i think that may be the biggest thing. we shouldn't be approving where there are violations. but i don't know whether this has gone too far. the point is, i don't know. either we could try some things out, and see what happens. as you say most of them can be approved at the staff level. that's one way to approach it. but i'm just looking back saying
i really don't know what is the right thing to do. you know. that's a good start. >> thank you, >> commissioner matsuda: i have some concern about the board or just the ability to be so discretionary. i think there needs to be some kind of guarantee or some kind of minimum criteria that you definitely are going to be seriously considering. people, we support the mills act program because we want to encourage people who own historic buildings to be good stewards. some people have the financial ability to do it on their own. some people want to do it because they've always loved historic buildings, but they need the financial help. i think there needs to be some kind of discretionary element of good faith for the staff to be able to exercise.
and i think that these property owners when they go and put all their efforts to apply for a mills act application, that they have some certainty, whether they're going to get it or not. right now, it doesn't feel like that to me. and so i wouldn't go through all that and spend all that money because my resources are limited if there is no guarantee. so i think there has to be some assurances that if i'm going to meet at least this criteria, that my application is to going to be taken seriously and clear criteria why i'm not going to be able and then the appeal process for that if there is one. >> mr. frei? >> yes. one clarification and then a suggestion, commissioners, all of your comments have been helpful. one in particular, and shannon
let me know if you have something to add to this, we could modify -- the nice thing about this, most of these are not code-driven. for number two, where work may not be completed prior to approval, we could limit that to -- or expand that to work may begin within the mills act calendar year cycle. i mean, it does take a full year for us to process these. so if somebody wanted to get started, they could get started in the calendar year. so that could give them -- it would also give them an opportunity to demonstrate good faith on being good stewards. so that's one suggestion. then the second one would be to eliminate number four. if you feel strongly there is a conflict, you'll be reviewing the certificates of appropriateness regardless, so throngs they're able to start
the work in ernest in the calendar year, maybe that's enough. >> i would support getting rid of number four. it's ownous. maybe you're buying a building and it takes a long time to get the drawings done. >> finally, i do want to clarify the record and remind everyone, it was more than just a few owner convictions, it was like, why should a $5 million condo receive a traffic break? which is more -- >> isn't it a $3 million condo? there is a cutoff. there is a cutoff. >> there are properties that have mills act. >> i think there is a limit.
>> well, the board and this commission do have discretion to raise that limit. the point i'm trying to make here, we tried hard to advocate as this is the only financial preservation incentive that the city and state have for property owners. i do think that some of the amendments do allow us to reposition the program as a rehabilitation program. because we are allowing for concurrent designation. and that certainly is what we're going to do. if you're amenable to this, that's what we're going to do with the outreach materials. the main question we received on the phone, is there money to help me with my older building? now we'll say yes and as long as you're willing to landmark, there is money to help you subsidize that work.
>> commissioner hyland: a question for you, mr. frye, this is in response to the gao not approving these contracts. so we're making some adjustments to our program with anticipation that is going to facilitate easier approval, is that correct? >> that is correct. it's also to address -- the past year they did not approve all contracts. the questions they've raised, they've raised every year. we've done our best to answer them. it finally got to a critical point where the board and committee are asking, what is the real benefit here for the city? and we need to demonstrate that we're really giving money for the right reasons. >> so the notion -- i just don't agree that the notion that because someone chose to go ahead and do the restorations on their own, they didn't need the money. it's an incentive for people to do that.
and if they can get it done and then take advantage of the incentive, i don't know why they would have to wait for the approval to get the work done. >> just as a matter of clarification, if you've done work in the previous year, it will count. that will narrow that a little bit and you can start within the year you applied. so... >> is this something we make a motion on? or we just providing comments? >> just comments. >> just comments. ok, so did we concur we're going to delete item 4? and then accept mr. frye's suggestion about changing number 2 to allow work that happened within the mills act calendar
year. >> and just one other recommendation is a to make sure that the small businesses knows what a mills act contract is, so when they start the process to work with folks applying for legacy business, they have information so they can start to gather that. because we're living in two separate worlds there. >> commissioners, we also heard from the president, under subsection b, clarify that, they're not supposed to do all of that. >> it's not all required, it must include some of the following. >> well, at least one. [laughter]. >> and maybe more. >> is there a vote? >> no, we're just taking comments. we're just providing comments. so the next step is based on the comments, commissioners, we
would make amendments to the promotional materials for the next cycle in 2019. we will use these policies to review the current batch of mills act applications that have come in and then we'll share the information with the gao so they understand we've made effort. and while certainly give you feedback, their feedback once we've heard it. i believe we have six -- >> we received six mills act applications by the filing deadline of may 1. >> are any of them work that has been completed? >> yes. >> all right. perhaps the project could be slightly expanded? >> that's right. [laughter] >> if there are no further items, the hearing is adjourned. .
the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco . >> the san francisco carbon fund was started in 2009. it's basically legislation that
was passed by the board of supervisors and the mayor's office for the city of san francisco. they passed legislation that said okay, 13% of the cost of the city air travel is going to go into a fund and we're going to use the money in that fund to do local projects that are going to mitigate and sequester greenhouse gas emission. the grants that we're giving, they're anywhere from 15,000 to, say, $80,000 for a two year grant. i'm shawn rosenmoss. i'm the development of community partnerships and carbon fund for the san francisco department of environment. we have an advisory committee that meets once or twice a year to talk about, okay, what are we going to fund? because we want to look at things like equity and
innovative projects. >> i heard about the carbon fund because i used to work for the department of environment. i'm a school education team. my name is marcus major. i'm a founding member of climate action now. we started in 2011. our main goal it to remove carbon in the public right-of-way on sidewalks to build educational gardens that teach people with climate change. >> if it's a greening grant, 75% of the grant has to go for greening. it has to go for planting trees, it has to go for greening up the pavement, because again, this is about permanent carbon savings. >> the dinosaur vegetable gardens was chosen because the garden was covered in is afault
since 1932. it was the seed funding for this whole project. the whole garden,ible was about 84,000 square feet, and our project, we removed 3,126 square feet of cement. >> we usually issue a greening rft every other year, and that's for projects that are going to dig up pavement, plant trees, community garden, school garden. >> we were awarded $43,000 for this project. the produce that's grown here is consumed all right at large by the school community. in this garden we're growing all kinds of organic vegetables from lettuce, and artichokes. we'll be planting apples and loquats, all kinds of great fruit and veggies. >> the first project was the dipatch biodiesel producing
facility. the reason for that is a lot of people in san francisco have diesel cars that they were operating on biodiesel, and they were having to go over to berkeley. we kind of the dog batch preferentials in the difference between diesel and biodiesel. one of the gardens i love is the pomeroy rec center. >> pomeroy has its roots back to 1952. my name is david, and i'm the chamber and ceo of the pomeroy rehabilitation and recreation center. we were a center for people with intellectual and development cal disabilities in san francisco san francisco. we also have a program for individuals that have acquired brain injury or traumatic brain
injury, and we also have one of the larger after school programs for children with special needs that serves the public school system. the sf carbon fund for us has been the launching pad for an entire program here at the pomeroy center. we received about $15,000. the money was really designed to help us improve our garden by buying plants and material and also some infrastructure like a drip system for plants. we have wine barrels that we repurposed to collect rain water. we actually had removed over 1,000 square feet of concrete so that we could expand the garden. this is where our participants, they come to learn about gardening. they learn about our work in the greenhouse. we have plants that we actually
harvest, and eggs from our chickens that we take up and use in cooking classes so that our participants learn as much as anybody else where food comes from. we have two kitchens here at the pomeroy center. one is more of a commercial kitchen and one is more setup like a home kitchen would be, and in the home kitchen, we do a lot of cooking classes, how to make lasagna, how to comsome eggs, so this grant that we received has tremendous value, not only for our center, for our participants, but the entire community. >> the thing about climate, climate overlaps with everything, and so when we start looking at how we're going to solve climate programs, we solve a lot of other problems, too. this is a radical project, and to be a part of it has been a real honor and a privilege to work with those administrators with the sf carbon fund at the
department of environment. >> san francisco carbon grant to -- for us, opened the door to a new -- a new world that we didn't really have before; that the result is this beautiful garden. >> when you look at the community gardens we planted in schools and in neighborhoods, how many thousands of people now have a fabulous place to walk around and feel safe going outside and are growing their own food. that's a huge impact, and we're just going to keep rolling that out and keep rolling that hearr
thursday, may 17th, 2018. i will remind the public and the commission does not tolerate disruption of outbursts of any kind. please silence your devices. if you care to you can at that, state your name for the record. [ roll call ] >> we do expect commissioner fong to be absent today. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one at 220 post street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to july 12th, 2018. item two, at 77 geary street, conditional use authorization is proposed