tv BOS Land Use and Transportation Committee SFGTV January 10, 2022 1:30pm-4:01pm PST
welcome to the january 10, 2022, meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor. this is our first meeting of the year 2022. may it be better. i am the chair of the committee joined by the vice chair. the committee clerk is erica major. i would like to thank the folks at sfgov tv. >> clerk: the committee members participating in this remote meeting. public access to city services essential and public participation is invited. public comment will be available either on channel 26, 76 and 89 and the call-in number is being streamed. each speaker will be allowed two
minutes to speak. you can call the number on your screen, 415-655-0001. again, that number is 415-655-0001. you will be prompted for the meeting i.d. which is 2494 264 6753. again, that number is 2494 264 6753. and then follow to # #. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listen note only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are from a quiet location, speak clearly and turn down your television or radio. or you can submit comment by e-mailing myselfo:
>> madam clerk, please call item 1ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa. sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2778-24th street (aka casa sanchez building), assessor's parcel block no. 4210, lot no. 018, as a landmark consistent with the standards set forth in article 10 of the planning code; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under planning code, section 302, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. members of the public can call 415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 2494 264 6753. and then press # #. if you have not already, please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. madam chair. >> chair: thank you very much, madam clerk. we are joined by supervisor hillary ronen who represents this corridor. thank you for being here.
do you have a few words? >> yes, thank you so much, chair. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for hearing this item today to designate this building as a san francisco landmark under article 10 of the planning code. i have very brief remarks and i'll turn it over to a colleague for her presentation. newly arrived immigrants first opened casa sanchez as a tortilla factory. they moved to the mission and established a much-loved family restaurant [indiscernible]. this restaurant helped to establish the strong presence of latinx-opened business.
there is an expectation that this restaurant will join soon. [indiscernible] during my first term, my office formalized the structure of cultural districts and a number of cultural districts formed across the city. the specific sites that carry the history and legacy of these districts are crucial recognizing that tangible and intangible elements are important contributors to the historical assets of the city. because of the leadership of this district, 24th street east of mission street has continued to be a high-concentration corridor.
the street hosts carnival and other festivals. while this restaurant has moved to a larger production space, the building still houses a latinx restaurant and the iconic sign remains. much thanks goes to the latino historical society and for those leading the charge to recognize and protect the historical contributions of the latinx community for san francisco's rich culture. i ask for your support to move this to the full board with recommendation for approval. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, supervisor ronen. this makes me so happy. supervisor peskin, did you want to say something before the next presenter? >> i did. in addition to the others, i
would be happy to affix my name as a co-sponsor. i want to note the association of the sanchez family not only with north beach but a latino community in north beach set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the fact sheet, not only in association with our lady of guadalupe church, but the -- that used to be the entire latin quarter. i never heard of this nightclub. i'm going to do more research on that. hats off on this case report and for the landmarking. i am happy to be a part of it. >> chair: thank you. i heard also that supervisor
peskin wants to learn to dance bonda. welcome, ms. lavali. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. if you could bring up my presentation. i have a few slides. before you is the ordinance recommending approval for casa sanchez. in 2017, the historical organization added this to their work plan. in coordination with the property owner and the latino historical society, the preservation commission voted to initiate the landmark designation of this building at their january 2021 hearing.
casa sanchez is located mid-block on the north side of 24th street in the heart of the commercial quarter of the latin latino district. this is a two-storey commercial building home to the restaurant from 1968 to 2011. this is the third location of a multi-generation family business that was founded in 1924, as mentioned by supervisor ronen. the casa sanchez company is believed to be the longest-operating tortilla and tamale factory. recommendation on the proposed landmark designation was heard
on october 6, 2021. the commission voted unanimously to recommend landmark this designation, finding that casa sanchez is historically significant for association with the family business that dates to the 1920s and with development of the larger latinx community particularly with that of the business district. this is recommended as being 1968 to 2011 of the period of significance, marking the tenure of the restaurant in the building. thank you to bob sanchez and the sanchez family for encouraging and supporting this designation and also reiterating the comments to the historical society for their research and documentation in support of this designation. thank you and that concludes my
presentation. >> thank you. colleagues, do we have any other questions or comments before we move on to public comment? >> i just wanted to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and please add me as a co-sponsor as well. >> add me too, please. the sanchez family has been so supportive of this area and really all the businesses in the corridor. let's go to public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we have six listeners.
can you unmute the first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is woody labounty from san francisco heritage. since 1961, heritage's mission is to preserve and enhance san francisco's unique cultural and architectural identity. san francisco heritage was previously heavily involved in pushing casa sanchez for listing as a historical place. we definitely support this significant association with the history of san francisco's mission district and the city's latinx communities and culture. we celebrate and support casa sanchez. we definitely support its nomination at the landmark and recommend it for approval. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you.
let's take the next caller, please. >> this is marta sanchez. nice to see everybody online. usually i have something to say, but this time i'm filled with emotions of all the memories i had growing up in the mission and on 24th street and all of the things we've been doing. everybody has participated in everything and i'm very proud to be proud of casa sanchez and the mission district. supervisor peskin, i'm really sorry you missed out on [indiscernible] because those are some good moments. i want to thank you for honoring us. it is not just my cultural -- it is who i am. it is not just something i do but something we are.
we started this first factory in the country means so much more than just being part of the family. i love that casa sanchez is here to stay. that means so much to me. i'm honored and thank you. >> clerk: chair melgar, can i make a quick comment. to further highlight this family's connection to casa sanchez, you can pretty much find marta any day of the week at the testing/vaccine site at cap and 24th street. she was there when i got my shots, when my daughter got her shots, when we got tested. it's this family's connection to the mission community and to the area in particular is profound and long lasting. so community serving.
marta, thank you for your community work. >> in fact, i just saw her yesterday. >> clerk: one more caller in the queue. let's take that caller. >> this is the founding member of the san francisco historical society. we are in the final [indiscernible] input from members and the city spanned over 60 years who are documenting the san francisco latino community history in first voice. i note the community has been a voice in this community for over 150. casa sanchez was one of those businesses. by approval the landmarking of
casa sanchez, it will be one of the first properties in san francisco to be listed for the association with mexican american history. in california's 1988 state-wide survey, the 10 mexican historic sites were identified potentially listing in the national registers. none have been listed to date. so by doing this today, you're making a bold statement. so i want to thank you. supervisor peskin, on the question of sinaloa, there has been a lot of research on that. i think we should set up a meeting so we can chat about those businesses. and my research, i've done a lot in north beach before the borders changed as well as after from the tamale vendors as well
as the first tamale business that was recognized by the international world fair. thank you for taking this into consideration and i hope you approve it. >> i may add that tomorrow's board of supervisors is actually voting on a resolution to encourage that the planning department pursue after it's been on their list for quite a while the north beach survey. i will make sure that the folks who are doing that avail themselves of all the historic information that you have that should definitely be included in that document if it has not already done so. >> clerk: thank you, supervisors. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the board with positive recommendation? there it is, supervisor peskin.
madam chair, if we could close public comment. >> chair: public comment is now closed. thank you. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: on the motion to item 1. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: congratulations, supervisor, that motion passes. madam clerk, let's call item 3 now, please. >> clerk: item 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to require landlords pursuing certain types of evictions to first provide their tenants written notice and an opportunity to cure, unless the eviction is based on an imminent health or safety issue or the non-payment of covid-19 rental debt; and making findings that the eviction protections in the rent ordinance are more protective than those found in state law pursuant to california civil code, section 1946.2. members of the public who wish
to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. again, that number is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. today is 2494 264 6753. then press # #. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak for item 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have an interpreter helping us with translation. if you can please call item 3. [speaking spanish].
you for finding room on the calendar for us which is always a challenge. i appreciate you holding this hearing today. colleagues, the board of supervisors has really come together to ban most evictions with limited exceptions for health and safety throughout the pandemic, at least to the maximum extent we could under state law. we did this as a public health measure, but it's become even clearer that making eviction a last resort is beneficial for all of us and not just a good idea during and as a response in covid, but also more permanently for the future of our city. in that spirit before us today is the eviction diversion ordinance. under the simple but impactful
proposal, before serving a three-day eviction notice, a landlord would be required to give a tenant a 10-day warning, allowing the tenant the opportunity to correct the behavior that could lead to eviction. eviction should really be auto tool of last resort and all too often three days really flies by and tenants are in a position where they could have come up with rent money or otherwise solved the dispute with the landlord, but they simply don't have enough time to access the resources and help that they need. our laws are very harsh. a landlord can commence the eviction process just three days later, even if with the tenant comes up with the rent or cures the breach of contract on the fourth day. so an additional 10 days would really be a game changer.
advocates have predicted this would save thousands of san franciscans who would otherwise lose their homes. i just want to emphasize that the fact is as a society we don't resolve any other dispute like this. you know, home foreclosures, consumer debt, car repossession s, you name it, in no other situation discuss someone have three days before losing their home and property. for some reason and beyond the reasons for our discussion today, for some reason our system accepts three days as disputes leading to people losing their homes. if the pending disputes can be solved, we have a moral obligation to make that happen. i really want to thank all of
the early co-sponsors who constitute a majority of the supervisors and include our entire committee. thank you, chair megar and supervisor peskin, and the other supervisors all for their co-sponsorship. i hope we can move forward and do everything in our power to prevent preventable eviction. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, supervisor preston, for introducing this item and your leadership throughout this pandemic which has resulted in helping thousands of folks in our city not losing their homes. i appreciate you in your elephants. thank you so much. if there's no other questions for supervisor preston, madam
clerk, let's go to public comment. did you want to make another announcement if folks want to get ready if they need to. [speaking spanish]. >> we're checking to see how many callers we have in the queue. if you have not, press star 3 to be added to the line. we have seven listeners with four in the queue. please unmute the first caller. >> my name is scott weiber with
the san francisco tenants' union and the eviction collaborative. i've been working on tenant rights issues and largely evictions for over 40 years and i'm very encouraged by this ordinance. it is an eviction prevention ordinance because it gives us a path to resolution that avoids the legal process. currently there is a three-day notice which is usually done with the assistance of an attorney. this sets in motion a momentum that leads to an unlawful retainer and often ends in eviction. the proposed legislation gives us additional time to driveways this without immediate eviction, whether it's payment of rent or some other breach of the rental
agreement. the city has invested quite a bit in community-based organizations as well as the collaborative as well as trying to keep people in their homes. this is a very good way to better utilize those resources, rather than having to deal with an adversarial litigation environment, they can go to the problem to help the person seek penalty assistance it's not much to ask of the landlord. it's only 10 days. they get the most expedited process in the legal world and it's only 10 days. that might make the difference between having a tenant evicted or not.
i support this legislation and encourage the board of supervisors to move forward with this. >> i'm from the san francisco tenants union calling in support of this legislation. it's really scary when you get served a three-day notice and you have to get it together to go to the eviction collaborative to file papers because you're being evicted. for what reason? it could be a minor reason that the landlord wants to take you to court. they may win or may lose. you don't know. they don't know. to have 10 days to resolve the situation, whatever is the case
that there is a breach, you can cure it without having to go through the trauma and the legal process. thank you. >> clerk: we have people in the queue. next listener. >> good afternoon. this is theresa flander north beach tenants' association. inevitably tenants receive a notice late friday at 5:00 p.m. or if they return from work, they see something in the mail. this gives tenants the time to contact tenant councilors over
that weekend which would be closed over the weekend. they would have access to tenant counseling, people to interpret what the notice means in a language they can understand. the thing is that the landlord knows in advance that this is something they are going to do. the tenant is only notified three days before a legal procedure begins in terms of an eviction. so this gives tenants the time to have the counseling. if they need accommodations for their emotional support animal, that they have time to get a note from their doctor as examples. so this is a huge game changer and i am so thrilled that you, supervisor preston, have brought
this forward. please, let's pass this on with a strong recommendation and have the board vote yes in favor. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the eviction defense collaborative and have over 35 years of experience working with tenants trying to preserve their housing. i'm so appreciative of this proposed legislation which is a potential game changer for tenants in our city. it creates an opportunity to resolve issues before having to resort to an expensive and drawn-out and extremely expensive court process which is cheaper for all the parties involved, both the landlords and the tenants. it brings san francisco more in sync with many jurisdictions around the country.
a three-day notice falls short of what due process would prior. it also brings in low-fault situations, very minor problems that could be resolved with enough of a warning notice so the tenant can seek assistance or request accommodation. and really be a win-win for the property owner and the tenant so the error is resolved and the problem is fixed and the tenant can retain their housing. so it avoids evictions, saves court costs for the landlord, is favorable to all and the city which has already endorsed this tenant program. our agency is the lead agency for that program. i would be like to be part of the work fighting these unnecessary cases.
>> clerk: next speaker, please. this is the last caller. if you would like to make public comment on item 3, you need to press star 3. >> i'm representing some of my colleagues [indiscernible] -- we are pleased to hear your sponsorship for this ordinance. we recognize the members and individuals experiencing homelessness is rising in san francisco. therefore, [indiscernible] to facilitate access to pregnancy and neonatal resources. extending access to these individuals, what additional measures can san francisco provide in addition to more affordable, neonatal supplies, and low-income populations?
>> thank you so much. we have three more callers in the queue. let's take the next caller. >> i am an organizer with the housing rights community of san francisco, calling in on this legislation to create a 10-day waiting period. evictions are violent and three days is not enough time for tenants to make the best decision. increasing the notice time to 10 days gives tenants and their families enough time to reach out or make plans for how best to respond. thank you, supervisors, for bringing this forward and hope to move it past this committee with full recommendations. thanks. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon, thank you. i am a staff attorney at the eviction collaborative. i am calling in support of this legislation. i have seen firsthand the importance and the need to postpone eviction cases. there is no reason that they can't have an additional waiting period before sending them to an eviction. if there was additional time it would provide tenants time to cure the issue in most if not all cases. throughout the pandemic we have seen that more time on cases has benefitted tenants and so we should continue to work towards providing more time for tenants to address the issue underlying issues so we don't have to go through the court process and avoid it if possible.
as other people have mentioned it is expensive and time-consuming and we need to find ways to resolve these issues without going to the court. we should all support this legislation. thank you so much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. we have two in the queue. >> i'm a small property owner in san francisco. i'm calling in and asking the supervisors to oppose this legislation moving forward to the board of supervisors because it's unnecessary and [indiscernible] -- first of all, i'd like to see and i haven't heard any data put forth why 10 days is a good amount of time to give to tenants. is there any research that that will avoid evictions in the
future? i would remind the supervisors that tenants already have more than 10 days to live up to their contract, it is the lease to live up to their contract. this is a very -- once again, a punitive action against small landlords like myself incurring costs when legislation like this is passed and i have to adhere to it. it is no secret in san francisco about all the trip-ups of a three-day notifier and how that can cost the landlord time and money. i would ask the supervisors to block this and not move forward with it as it is punitive and there is nothing to help the housing situation in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have one caller in the queue. let's take the last caller.
>> i own rental property in san francisco. i urge you to vote no on the proposed notice. what it looks like is a lot of people don't know how the eviction process works in san francisco. there's already numerous safety valves for tenants, like court-mandated settlement agreements and mandatory conferences between landlords and tenants. this gives tenants plenty of time to avoid losing their homes even after an unlawful detainer is filed. the proposed notice does nothing that tenants need and it increases the cost of housing because most of us have to hire an expensive lawyer to send out each of these notices and higher legal costs and making the cost higher for tenants. that's what you're doing that.
renters don't want that and housing providers don't want it either. please vote no. if you still think tenants need a little more than three days? how about changing the existing three-day notice to a four or five-day notice or 10 days, whatever. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. that looks like that was the last caller in the queue. >> chair: okay. well, with that, complement is now closed. any other questions or comments? first, supervisor preston. seeing none, supervisor preston, do you want to make a motion that we send this to the board with full recommendation? >> so moved. >> clerk: in the motion as
stated by supervisor preston to recommend item 3. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: we have three ayes that motion passes. >> chair: thank you. and that motion passes. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the planning code to conditionally permit bars in the castro street neighborhood commercial district; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code. members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 2 can call the number on the screen, 415-655-0001 and the my colleagued i.d. today is 2494 264 6753.
>> clerk: we don't have supervisor mandleman with us but we have someone with his office. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, chair. i am from supervisor mandleman's office who couldn't be here to give a very brief background on this ordinance. earlier this year we had a local entrepreneur who approached our office about her interest in opening a wine bar with some piano music and light snacks. it sounded lovely. she was calling because she went to the planning department because she was told this would not be possible. bars are not permitted in the
castro planning district, which may come as a surprise. obviously as there are a number of bars there, they are effectively all grandfathered in. this is a fine thing for those bars that we love, but this is not a good thing for this lesbian small business owner and others like her who want to add to the neighborhood. since that conversation, the supervisor discussed this in the neighborhood and the broader queer community including many local organizations. the prevailing sentiment, supervisors, is it doesn't seem fair to preclude new folks, queer folks, trans folks, from opening a an establishment in
the neighborhood. at the same time, we also heard clearly there is a desire not to see a complete saturation of the neighborhood with just bars or to see a history of new bars. what the ordinance before you would do would remove the outright prohibition in this area and make bar uses permitted. there would be an opportunity to get in on a case-by-case basis and for the planning commission to deliberate on that as well. this approach would be how bars are zoned in the other districts. this ordinance was unanimously recommended by the small business commission as well as the planning commission in december and the planning department staff is here as well to convey the planning commission's recommendation. this is a relatively simple
piece of legislation that the supervisor believes will make this a welcoming neighborhood and retain its character. i'm available for any questions. thank you so much. >> chair: thank you so much. ms. merlone, do you have a presentation? >> no presentation. just here to convey that the planning commission heard this on december 16, 2021, and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance as proposed. >> chair: thank you so much to you both. colleagues, if there are no questions or comments from you, let's go to public comment. madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see how many callers are in the queue. please press star 3 to add yourself to the queue.
it looks like we have about to listeners today with one person in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this afternoon i'm speaking on my behalf as a private citizen and a 15-year resident of the castro. although i benefit from the privilege of quaintness, i have seen what happens. every single bar is owned by a cis gender person. i have spoken with brown and black folks, lesbians and black people who have been heart broken to learn that making it to the united states, there is no place for them here. our friends and family and san francisco's visitors endure ongoing pain and trauma, not
only because they don't find those spaces that prioritize them, but these bars set the tone that is reflected in the behavior of staff, performers, and guests. this exclusion of these bar owners is due to a deal cut in the 1980s that has no bearing on today. i invite you to support this proposed legislation. thank you so much. >> clerk: that was the only caller in the queue, madam chair. >> chair: thank you so much. out of curious, when was this ban on new establishments implemented in the castro? >> thank you, chair. thanks to the great sleuthing at the planning department, it was determined that this had been included in the castro since
that neighborhood commercial district was created in i believe 1987. this was a time period when we were creating many of these named districts. >> chair: interesting. thank you so much. so with that, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or comments or do you want to -- does anybody want to make a motion that we forward this with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> and this item was noted to have a report. on that motion. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair: thank you so much. that item passes unanimously with a positive recommendation. thank you so much.
look a lot darker and today is sun is shining and it's beautiful and it's been completely redone and been a gathering place for this community. >> i have been waiting for this garden for 3 decades. that is not a joke. i live in an apartment building three floors up and i have potted plants and have dreamt the whole time i have lived there to have some ability to build this dirt. >> let me tell you handout you -- how to build a community garden. you start with a really good idea and add community support from echo media and levis and take management and water and sun and this is what we have. this is great. it's about
environment and stewardship. it's also for the -- we implemented several practices in our successes of the site. that is made up of the pockets like wool but they are made of recycled plastic bottles. i don't know how they do it. >> there is acres and acres of parkland throughout golden gate park, but not necessarily through golden community garden. we have it right in the middlit.
>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best
unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is
different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness.
>> san francisco has to all welcome. go ahead and start the historic preservation meeting. remote hearings require your attention. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item oven today's agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415) 655-0001. and entering access code 24976055777. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to,
please press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to 30 seconds and when you hear a chime, your time is almost up. best practices are to call from a quiet location speak clearly and slowly. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]
sblgt thank you commissioners. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. again, you need to press star three to be added to the queue and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: eileen vogan. speak is working with parkside heritage on a number of projects. the clubhouse has come before the commission. the park side library will come before the commission this spring. another project is the terraville police station. it was built in 1924 and was
designed by martin wrist. it was completely restored and renovated in 1996, however, the renovation did not include seismic retro fitting. as part of 2020 earth quake safety and emergency response bond also known as easer. the subject in the wall street journal mansion section last year, there was an article titled with the headline everything old is new again. the headline is for over a decade, homeowners were heavily reworking san francisco story victorians to fit a highly moderate aesthetic. now young buyers are embracing these century old, how covid
made these homes hot. and i quote, san francisco victorians are making a comeback. for over a decade, young homeowners fuelled by tech hundred and the dominance of moerndz architecture were heavily reworking the city's cache of historic properties. their architectural details removed to make way for precise corners. their woodwork painted bright light and interiors brushed and washed in shades of gray. the tide is finally starting to turn. a growing number of young residents of san francisco are choosing to purchase and restore historic properties, in particular victorians so that they are synonymous with the
city. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you. last call for general public comment. again, you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak. general public comment is closed. and we can move on to department matters. are there any department announcements? >> hi, jonas. deputy director of department planning. commissioners. happy new year. we hope you've had a great start. we don't have any major announcements. i do want to recognize one of our long-time preservation staff who will be departing us on friday. so stephanie cisneros will be leaving us for a private firm. we want to thank her for all of her years of service.
she has been a shepherd to the southwest quadrant for the last couple of years and also been a valued member of our ceqa team and we wish her the best. >> secretary: thank you. indeed. commission matters, item two, president's report and announcements. >> president: i don't have any announcements at this point. thank you. >> secretary: very good. item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 1st, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes from december 1st, 2021. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public. public comment on this item is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner: motion approved. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, [roll call]
so moved, commissioners. that places us on item four, commission comments and questions. >> i'd like to ask the commission to consider establishing a date for our election of officers. i don't know if we've possibly considered that for our next h.p.c. meeting on the 19th. >> secretary: very good. >> i think that's a good idea. >> secretary: would someone make the motion as the chair cannot. >> i move that we consider election of officer its at our next meeting. >> secretary: do i hear a
second? >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you. on that motion then to add the election of officers to your january 19th hearing agenda, [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item five. oh, i'm sorry. were there any other comments or questions from members of the commission? if there are none, then we can move on to item five. for case number 2021-009976crv. again, commissioners, this is to allow us to continue meeting
remotely through the month of january and, again, we need to take this up every 30 days. i do believe i forwarded the e-mail from the mayor's office and the city administrative office indicating that we may begin reconvening in city hall, possibly as soon as our first hearing in march. so there does appear to be some light at the end of the tunnel, maybe. we'll see. for now, we do need you to adopt this resolution. >> commissioner: does that mean you need a motion? >> secretary: indeed, i do. >> commissioner: all right. i move to adopt the resolution. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the resolution to allow us to continue meeting remotely, [roll call]
so moved. that places us on item six for case 2021-012352crv for your rules and regulations. commissioners, i will quickly try to share my screen so that you can -- well, i don't know why it's not letting me do this now. of course not. well, commissioners, to you the amendment proposed is simply to incorporate the racial and social equity of the component to your rules and regulations
and i will simply read that into the record. adding section two under article one, that the san francisco historic preservation commission acknowledges the diverse population of the city and county of san francisco and reaffirms its commitment to racial and social equity. the commission recommends that the mayor nominate and the board of supervisors affirm members of the commission that represent this diversity. the commission directs the planning department to ensure the diverse voices of san francisco are given the opportunity to be heard and represented with reasonable accommodations at all public meetings of the commission. and this is really to satisfy phase one of the racial and social equity plan that came before you a couple years ago now as well as some minor text and grammatical errors throughout but that is the substantive amendments to your rules and regulations.
members of the public, if you would like to address the commission on their proposed amendments to the rules and regulations, you need to press star 3. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, public comment on your rules and regulations is closed and they are now before you. >> commissioner: i'll move that we adopt the change and rules proposed. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to adopt the amendments proposed for the rules and regulations, [roll call] thank you, commissioners. so moved.
and now we can go -- continue to your continuance calendar for item seven. case number 2020-006466coa for the property of 621 waller street. this is a certificate of appropriateness and it is proposed for continuance to february 16th, 2022. commissioner wright, i believe you are requesting to be recused. >> commissioner: yes, that's correct. >> secretary: on this matter. i will remind you and the other commissioners for any recusal of any item that you are present at the hearing or absent from the hearing, you need to file the form stating why with the city ethics commission. commissioner wright, you are hear by recused and if you would just turn off your video and mute your microphone, you can rejoin us as soon as we take this vote, as soon as we
get a motion. >> commissioner: i move that commissioner wright be recused. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: sure. on the motion to recuse commissioner wright, [roll call] thank you. you are officially now recused, commissioner wright. on the matter of continuance. >> commissioner: motion to approve the continuance. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue item six as proposed, [roll call]
so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6-0. commissioner wright, you may rejoin us for the next item. previously listed as a consent calendar item, but we are pulling it off of consent to submit some amendments to you. so this matter will be heard. item eight, case number 2021-009109coa, 4610 2nd street. i understand commissioner matsuda, you need to be recused. >> commissioner: that's right. my firm is related to this project. >> commissioner: move to recuse. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to recuse commissioner nageswaran, [roll call]
so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and you are hereby recused. >> do we need for anything after this? >> secretary: well, we don't have anything after this. >> commissioner: okay. just wanted to make sure. >> secretary: okay. see you soon. monica, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. thank you, jonas. the application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 461 2nd street also known as the clock tower building. a contributor to the south end landmark district located under article 10 of the planning district and zoning district. the building was constructed in
1907 for the smidt graph company. founded by mack smidt, it was one of the largest print companies on the west coast. in 1920, the prominent clock tower was added to the existing buildings and an addition was constructed in 1938. the building's original ornamentation was removed and all of the brick facade was covered with smooth stucco in the 1960s. an existed metal snap-on baton roofing system with a new painting metal snap-on painted roofing system. which will match in terms of material and color. the replacement panels will be smaller resulting in an altered
appearance. staff is allowed to approve a certificate of appropriateness for replacing roofing materials. when those. the project also includes eight windows on the south side of the building. described as three over three ask in fact the proposal would replace existing two over two aluminum windows in kind with new two over two aluminum windows in the existing window openings. department staff has provided a corrected project plan early this morning. if the project is approveded as proposed today, staff will revise the staff report provided in your packets to
provide the scope of work. we have not received anything in regards to. outlined in article 10 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval with the following conditions. first, prior to planning department approval of the site permit, the project sponsor shall provide shop drawings for project elements including but not limited to the windows and roofing system for review and approval to the department preservation staff. second, as part of the future review of the building permit by the department of building inspection or any other city agencies, any requirements to the project may be reviewed and approved by the department preservation staff. staff will modify -- i'm sorry. that's not correct. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is also in attendance and we are happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you.
>> secretary: ms. carver, you have five minutes for a presentation. >> yeah, i mean, i do not have much of a presentation other than what monica is showing you right now. >> secretary: okay. if that concludes your presentation, we can open up public comment. members of the public if you wish to address the commission on this item, you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak. public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president: great. any members of the commission who wish to make comment? >> thank you, monica, nice to see you again and thank you for putting together this presentation.
just a quick question, looking at the packet, can you point to me how much smaller the new roofing would become. it's kind of hard to tell. >> sure, and i may ask megan to also chime in on the existing measurements of those panels. but i know that the panels are being shrunken down to 19'' wide in that you cannot get a standard roofing system anymore that has larger panels than that 19''. >> commissioner: yeah. i don't mean to interrupt. i'm just trying to be brief. it seems like this is the only matter coming before us. 0 are these panels going to turn into 50% less than what the original module or we're talking about something that's shrunk by an inch. it's just kind of hard to tell in these drawings what was -- i
guess i'm seeing just a little elevation here. >> yes. on the last page of the packet. >> commissioner: it's just like one simple elevation. what is it half the size smaller? >> so i'm not sure exactly which packet you're looking at now, but in the drawing set, there is an image on the last page that has an existing detail of the roof and then the new detail of the snap-on batton system. currently, there's about 31'' and that will be reduced to 19'' in between each vertical batton. >> commissioner: and the overall height is consistent, it remains unchanged. >> that is correct. yes. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> president: thank you.
commissioner wright. >> commissioner: just to kind of jump onto the discussion that commissioner so was just asking about, i believe the height of the new baton is reduced from 2.5'' to 1.5'' and that the width of the batons, i spoke with monica yesterday to kind of go over some of these, but the width of the existing baton is if i recall 1.25'' but would get slightly wider to 1.5''. so the height is being reduced substantially, but -- fairly, but widened slightly. i don't know if that helps, but it does seem -- commissioners,
there was a question about the percentage of shrinkage and the density of these panels, you know, what that changes. it does seem like it's almost 50% based on my review. and so in my review, it also occurred to me that the original roof system that you can see in the historic photos was not a baton system and appeared to be flatter, you know, similar to a flat seamed roof, metal roof or potentially a tiled or straight roof. i looked at some other photos and it does appear that the original roof existed at least until 1963 based on what i saw and the south end historic
districts period of significance goes until 1935. so, you know, as the period of significance is up to 1935 and the flatter system was in the 1990s. i wonder in the manner of the original and a question that may be the project proponent can speak to. the batons are getting shorter as i mentioned before, but slightly wider and will be more densely spaced. i wonder if other systems were such as a flat seam or other type of systems were explored for instance. i wondered also if flat seam or
something completely flat was not possible due to wind loads or other constructbility issues if standing seams were explored or could be shorter or would allow wider spacing if they would be more less obtrusive and more visually consistent. so these are kind of some of the questions that were running through my mind that i thought it might be worth the commission discussing and weighing in on. >> president: thank you. does staff want to initially respond to that? >> thank you, commissioner. i'm sorry, my power cut out in this room a couple of minutes ago, so i may have missed the beginning of commissioner wright's statements and the end of commissioner so's statements. so if there were any questions directed towards staff specifically, i'm sorry, i would have to ask you to repeat them i don't think i got them.
and then i think, commissioner wright posed some questions that probably would be best answered by the project sponsor because they have to do with the consideration of the approach prior to the submittal of the project. can i ask the commissioners to pose the questions again for staff? >> commissioner: yeah. sorry i was curious if other systems were explored. i described the change in the baton system being shorter but a little wider, much denser with almost 50% denser in spacing and just kind of wondered and posed a question that other systems were explored, what those considerations might mean in terms of whether or not for instance a flat seam, i'm sorry, a standing seam metal
roof or a if a flat seam was not possible due to windows or constructbility if standing seam might result in shorter seams, wider panels, less obtrusive visually or more consistent visually. so that's kind of the gist of it. >> and, monica, i didn't really pose another question except just to clarify making sure i'm reading the most recent packet and it does concur with what commissioner wright mentioned that is almost worth changing the proportion close to 50% denser. so i haven't really asked a question. but in general, i concur, agree with commissioner wright's questions and i'd like to hear
the project sponsor's rationale for how to approach this. why are we defining exemplifying the roofing pattern that is actually outside of the period of time that is what is designated as the historic significant period. really i agree with commissioner wright's comments that will be in line with my questions after understanding what they're proposing. and i believe there's a way to do almost close to flat seam roof without and it's still code compliant for wind load capacity. i do believe there's a system out there, but i'd like to hear what the project sponsor had explained their obstacles to get through this project. thank you. >> absolutely. i can definitely speak to that. initially, this project was brought to us because the roof
is experiencing leaks and some of the panels are structurally beginning to slide and you can see some breaks in the openings between panels. so we spoke with the building h.o.a. and it is our intention to, of course, bring back the historic look first and foremost being a perez preservation firm. however, being an aesthetic to not only the gold color. so we did initially look at historic photos. we're trying to determine if it was a slate roof initially or a flat seam metal roof and it is our belief that it was a much darker metal tone or hue, an aluminum hue to begin with. so that would need quite a significant bit of research to see what the original color was as well. so the h.o.a. spoke with their members and came back to us and
said they would like to pursue matching the existing to the best of our ability with the color and the vertical baton system. so that was really our rationale. >> commissioner: and, if i might speak, this is commissioner wright. i don't believe -- well, i'm not suggesting that we specify a color necessarily, but the because that could be changed, but the configuration of the roof and kind of the appearance of the panels and the shadow lines and etc. is kind of what i was asking more about. >> the shadow lines of the vertical baton system of the new proposed one? >> commissioner: no.
i'm sorry. it was more of a statement is that, you know, my questions were more about the profiles and configuration rather than trying to say that the original color should be returned rather than, you know, repainting with the same gold color. >> commissioner: yeah. i really agree with commissioner wright and our question is more towards changing the materiality with this new baton system had changed the facade portion system of the look. so we'd like to hear what your thought process for it. >> sure. we just started investigating
vertical baton systems that we might be able to replace in kind and the more manufacturers that we came in contact with, the better understanding we got that an engineered system that came with a standard material warranty as well as a coastal warranty, no manufacturers any longer create panels wider than 19'' between vertical batons. so that was primarily if we want a warrantied and engineered system that has a great track record historically, that's what brought us to this snap-on baton system with 19'' between each. >> commissioner: and, if i might ask another question of the project proponent, was standing seam or other systems explored beside the baton system and would panel with or
seam heights, do you know if panel widths would be allowed to be wider than the 19'' or if the seam heights would be shorter? they certainly would be more narrow, the seams would be more narrow than the baton. >> sorry. could you restate your question? >> commissioner: yes. i was asking if other roofing systems such as a standing seam systems were explored in detail and if those, if a standing seam system might allow for wider spacing than the 19'' or if the seam heights could be shorter than 1.5'', that would
help minimize the -- i think the density the way these batons will appear on the roof or these joints will appear on the roof and, you know, i was just stating that certainly a standing seam system would have much narrower seams than the 1.25'' baton. >> understood. no. we did not pursue a standing seam system. we only looked into a vertical baton system in order to keep as close to the aesthetic as possible. >> commissioner: thank you. >> president: commissioner black, did you want to -- >> commissioner: yeah. i have some of the same questions initially.
. >> president: commissioners, did you want to add any additional comments here? >> thank you, president matsuda. my last question is quite simple. i would like the project sponsor to look into other metal roofing system that carry a pretty robust long warranty. i do really agree and resinate with commissioner wright's comment about or whether we
should get a responsibility to look into what is this tower at the most historically significant period represent and look back where it was supposed to be looking like and take a look at that again. one of the packet information you provided is it was original 1920 roof and it is a pretty straight forward, very simple metal roofing and if we can explore that approach and i am pretty aware that there is such a thing out there in the architectural industry that carry warranty. so maybe perhaps i hope that just to be a responsible architect and historic preservation specialist that maybe we can look at that one
more time to do the right thing, to make sure that we can -- [ indiscernible ] i pass it all the time on the freeway and this is one of the most iconic pieces in the upper east cut. and i'd like that to be looking pretty and i know people throw fancy parties there. please, just take another good look at it. i really appreciate it. hope it doesn't take too long. >> president: thank you. commissioner johns. >> commissioner: thank you. as the commission was making comments and so forth, it struck me that as far as, you know, looking back or going back to the 1920s, commissioner black made a really i thought that this isn't 1920s, that was all obliterated 20 years ago.
if we go back to something that changes that look from 60 years ago by making it say flat, you know, we're kind of just seems to me like fooling around with this aesthetic or that aesthetic pretty much divorced from the design of the building that people have i would say become rather fond of. so my thought was, well, since apparently without a great deal of expense is a customized roof to reproduce what's there might be satisfactory to get as close as, you know, is commercially available now. so that's my observation. thank you. >> president: thank you. commissioner foley.
>> commissioner: i concur with commissioner black's comments about when the thing got renovated. i believe they told us there are water leaks right now. and i'm living with a roof that's leaking and it's really miserable. so i would concur with commissioner black and commissioner johns' comments. thank you. >> president: thank you. are there any other comments from the commission? any commissioners interested in entertaining a motion? or a motion with amendments? >> commissioner: how about --
i'm not at all versed to having the applicant consider other roofing materials. perhaps as a means -- it's tricky because there are a bunch of approval agencies including an h.o.a. here. i wonder if we couldn't create an approval that allows staff to modify the approval should the architect and the h.o.a. agree to some other material that's closer to what was there originally. i feel like we're hybridizing a little bit. the building already has changed significantly. so that's why i decided that at the end of the day, even though this roofing will look a little bit different than what's there now, it's close enough to the building as it exists today
that i decided not to question it. i'm open to if anybody feels really strongly to consider some other roofing material. i'd like to not delay the project further. let's let them get their roof taken care of. >> commissioner: is that a motion, commissioner black? >> commissioner: a very -- >> president: commissioner black, is it an amendment to the motion to have staff -- delegate staff to work with the project sponsor to do further research and then -- >> commissioner: yes. that is my intention is if there is another roof material that works for the applicants that staff can approve, then i would say, yes. otherwise, i move to approve what's on paper now as of today. so it doesn't have to come back
to us unless, you know, my fellow commissioners feel otherwise. >> commissioner: i would second that motion. >> president: so it would be -- jonas, it would be an amendment to the current motion to have delegate to staff, is that correct? to do some further research in cooperation with the project sponsor and should staff feel that there is more of an appropriate material available to recommend that or and if it is not to just go ahead with what is being considered today. >> secretary: right. if i understand the motion correctly. it's essentially you are approving this request with the conditions. however, you are directing that the project sponsor continue working with staff on an alternate solution if one presents itself. >> commissioner: i second that motion.
>> commissioner: i have a question about that, about what we're voting on here, if i may. is staff supposed to look for something that's more appropriate, that is closer to the 1920s roof or more appropriate closer to the existing roof? that could make a difference. >> commissioner: i would -- go ahead. i would say this, i personally have a tremendous amount of faith in the planning department and the preservation team there and i feel they've all understood the commission very well and i think commissioner black's proposed motion gives them the ability to find a good solution for everyone including us without us trying to meddle with it all the time. >> commissioner: i trust that
too. i agree with commissioner foley. let's let the staff make that best appropriate determination. that's sensible motion. i like that. >> commissioner: and if then we could just be updated i guess on the result of that, i think that would be nice. i would also like to just question that since -- well, i'd like to question the window change as well and since the windows are getting replaced anyhow, it does seem more appropriate that the three over three configuration which would erroneously was included in the first packet would be the way to go rather than a two over two. >> if i may speak to that. hi, it's megan here. we are currently only replacing
eight units. so if we were to revert it back to the three over three, it would no longer match the remaining twelve units on the building next to it. just something to consider. >> commissioner: sure. and then i guess to followup on that discussion, do we know how old the other i think you said twelve units are if they're near the end of their youthful life, replacement of those might be around the corner as well. >> right. the eight that we are replacing right now have been reported to no longer operate and the gasket around the glass is deteriorating. i'm under the assumption that all the units were replaced during the renovation that was completed in 1992. and i believe they were also previously wood sash windows, three over three wood sash.
>> commissioner: so if the i think you said eight that are being replaced now that have failed, were replaced at the same time as the other twelve, then it's very likely that the other twelve will need replaced fairly soon. i mean 1992, that's what 30 years. that's about the life of a metal window. >> i would agree with that. absolutely. i would agree with you. i do think that eventually they will need to be, but i know financially speaking these four units were prioritized by the h.o.a. >> commissioner: so i would like to suggest that the original light configuration be returned to the three over three. i'm not suggesting that they go
back to wood. >> commissioner: i can support that too. can we make that into the amendments to our motion? >> commissioner: so when i made my motion, i really made it out of respect for two of the architects on the commission who had raised concerns about the roof. i'm really feeling certainly staff can manage this. i hate throwing things to staff and i don't want to slow this project down. they need to fix the roof. i'm not sure that i -- i don't -- i'm not sure i'm prepared to accept the additional motion that relates to the windows as part of my motion. but someone can make an
alternative motion. >> secretary: very good. >> president: commissioner wright, would you like to make an alternative motion or to add to commissioner black's motion? >> commissioner: yes. i think that, you know, i would like to propose using the basis of commissioner black's motion, but then adding the original light configuration of three over three. i also see that rich ducrey and commissioner johns might have some comments that would affect the discussion or the motion. >> sure, commissioners. happy to chime in here. i think what i hear the
commissioners discussing is like basically differences in the types of preservation approach. there's definitely a line of thought that says the building should go back to its original qualities. there's another line of thought that looks at what the building looked like at the point of designation and/or recognizes the future alterations. more i will say from staff and we usually rely fairly strictly on the designating report and look at are more about what the designated staff feel about it at the point we recognized it.
it was clear in the history of this building that this building had been altered. we felt the work was till proposed compatible. so i think it's helpful if the commission expresses your as to which direction you'd like us to take. we'll go back to what was the building at the time of designation or does it still meet the overall character of the building and the district itself. >> commissioner: i appreciate that explanation and i feel more comfortable with my
motion. >> commissioner: this is commissioner foley. i think that i've. i was around when they built that building. and i think our job is to weigh in on these things, but i think what mr. sucre said, we have to respect that because i think the applicants need to understand that there is a process here. so i would again second commissioner black's motion and second. can we get a vote? >> president: commissioner
johns, did you want to -- >> commissioner: yeah. just one thing since commissioner wright asked for my participation in this. mr. sucre really said in more i think finished language than i did the point that i was making. i agree with commissioner foley that the staff is entitled to quite a large degree of trust and are confident, but i don't think the commission should advocate its responsibility and i would look back to what was done in the past when there was earlier approvals. thank you.
>> secretary: okay. commissioners, there's no further deliberation from members of the commission. i've heard two competing motions but i did not hear a second to commissioner wright's motion. so for now, we'll take up the original motion made by commissioner black that has been seconded and please correct me if i'm wrong, but i understand that motion to essentially approve this with conditions directing the project sponsor to continue working with staff on alternate roofing and window solutions, but leaving that discretion to staff as to what ultimately is approved and i think no one would mind if staff returned with an update to the commission at some point in the future when the final decision is made. on that motion, [roll call] >> commissioner: i guess i just have a question, jonas,
before we move on. i think you're suggesting in your statement of the motion that we rely on staff's approach for the windows. i don't think there's any question about the roofing approach. i think my motion -- my previous motion was just adding on to commissioner black's motion to incorporate some guidance on the window approach. is that correct? >> secretary: i understand that, but i did not hear commissioner black accept your amendment. >> commissioner: you're correct. i didn't really because i -- i think i -- well. >> commissioner: i understand that. that's why there were two competing motions. i don't think that commissioner black wanted to incorporate my
suggestion about the windows into her motion. >> secretary: that's what i heard. >> commissioner: may i speak. i would like to second commissioner wright's additional aesthetic recommendation to the window treatment. >> secretary: okay. now we do have two competing motions and we should call the first one and take that vote and then if that fails, we'll go to the second. >> president: correct. >> secretary: okay. so on the motion to approve with conditions with allowing staff to have final discretion on the roof and windows, [roll call] frrdz
okay. well that motion fails 3-3 with commissioners wright, johns, and so voting against. so there's an alternate motion where we are approving this matter with conditions allowing staff to have discretion over the roof, but to require a three over three light configuration for the windows. on that motion, [roll call] very good, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner foley voting against. starting off the year with a bang. thank you all, commissioners for a very short hearing and we will see you in two weeks for
>> first of all, thank you for coming to celebrate this incredible milestone. i am really excited that she accepted. because i know what you often times may see is the fights between kim and i. what you don't know is about the friendship and the amount of love and respect i truly have for her and her work ethic from the moment i met her actively engaged in labor in a way that
brought the conversation to a different level around women and minorities and their role in leadership and labor. it is good to see more women step up and in fact, it is 125 year history not one woman has ever led the san francisco labor council and kim is doing that, which is absolutely extraordinary. [applause] and you are the first executive director of the labor council to serve on this work force investment board because i didn't want to appoint the others. just kidding. but in fact, you know, this is so important. when i think about growing up in the western addition and the fights that we used to have to be included in the placements and job opportunities that exist in the city, i feel like we have
come a long way but we still have a long way to go to make the real connections between people in many of the communities that many of you represent but himself the same people who want these opportunities, the new jobs that come to san francisco. not just the work related to construction and engineering but as you know there are even shortage of nurses. the work you have done with nuhw was extraordinary onever the years. how that played a role to make sure there is a real connection between people and the opportunities, through organized labor to make sure they get their fair share, the appropriate pay and benefits and the ability to take care of themselves and their families. you have been doing this work for a really long time. i know that you are going to bring a really strong voice to this body. in the process you are going to make a lot of folks upset what
it is you have to say, but i wouldn't have wanted it any other way because some things need to be upset. some things need challenged. in fact, i am not afraid of a challenge and not afraid of the conversations that need to be had to get to a better place that is what we want. we want a better place so people have better lives. you have dedicated your lives to public service. organized labor but public service because of the people that you know you represent. the people that you know are counting on autophytes for them and make the right decisions that are going to have an impact onnary families and livelihood. regardless of disagreements at the end of the day the underlying message i know that is most important to much of you and i know is important to kill is the fact that we want to
fight for better lives for the people we represent. that is why you are going to be serving on this board, and i appreciate and honor that you accepted this opportunity. i am looking forward to seeing something change for the better for workers throughout san francisco. with that let's debt you sworn in. (applause). >> i will put on my mask. covid is running rampant and we are close to each other. place raise your right hand and repeat. i say your name do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic that i bear
true faith and allegiance to the same. that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter and during such time as i serve as a member of the work force investment san francisco board for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [applause] >> here is a little city seal pen with my signature. i give this to all people i
swear in to serve. ladies and gentlemen, the latest person for the board tackling work force in san francisco and making real change. [applause] >> thank you, mayor breed, for taking time-out of your schedule to do this. thank you to the leaders of labor here today, especially my board members, susan, mike, charlie, debra, and my good friend karen. i want to thank you for taking time for the swearing in. it means a lot to me because i have always been really
challenged by the fact there rvs and have notes in the work force, and i really want to fight overcoming making sure that everyone becomes a very. everyone has an opportunity to get a job and a wealthy job and to join a union if they so choose. that is my mantra since i was little. it is my mantra to this day. i will fight to make sure. that is what the labor council is about making sure there are opportunities for people and career ladders. that has always been what i have been about. i want to make sure that happens. we have seen companies take advantage of people especially during strikes when they go into poor neighborhoods to try to recruit scabs. we knead to emphasize recruiting people to getting into them into
construction and janitors and construction trades and up the ladder and nursing, healthcare. these are all opportunities they should all have. we want to make sure that the san franciscans that we all know and love have that opportunity and that is my goal for this. i really intend to implement a labor caucus to make sure that we are doing what we need to do to give every san franciscan the opportunity be to participate from our economic recovery from covid and overall economic recovery as we get on with opening up the city and making sure that people come to san francisco. those the obstacles before us. i hope we overcome them altogether as we move along. thank you.
that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪♪♪ we do a lot of the big sexy jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter
buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in
charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field.
we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction. the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with
agfemale in a vore sports dynamic facility. i coached volo ball on the side and as candle stick closed down the city had me move in92 too [inaudible] >> immediate interaction and response when you work with kids. i think that is what drives other people to do this. what drew me to come to [inaudible] to begin with for me to stay. i use today work in advertising as a media buyer and it wasn't fulfilling enough and i found a opportunity to be a writing coach. the moment [inaudible] you to take advantage of how you change and inspire a child by the words you say and actions you do. >> you have a 30 different programs for girls through rec and park and fast ball, soft ball and volley ball. i
started the first volley ball league and very proud what i have done with that. being a leader for girls is passion and showing to be confident and being ambiggish and strong person. [inaudible] for about 5 years. programs offered thraw thirty-three rec and park and oversee thg prms about a year. other than the programs we offer we offer summer camp squz do [inaudible] during the summer and that is something i wherei have been able to shine in my role. >> couple years we started the civic center socking league and what an amazing opportunity it was and is it for kid in the neighborhood who come together every friday in the civic center plaza on green grass to run and play. you otonly see soccer and poetry but also see books t. is a really promoting
literacy to our kid and giving them to tools to make it work at home. real fortunate to see the [inaudible] grow. >> girls get pressureed with society and i know that is obvious, but we see it every day, magazines, commercials the idea what a woman should look like but i like to be a strong female role for it goals that play sports because a lot of times they don't see someone strong in a female role with something connected with sports and athleticism and i love i can bring that to the table. >> soccer, poetry, community service. we now have field of dreams. we are [inaudible] all over the bay area and excited to be share our mission with other schools across the bay to really build the confidence and character of kids when they go out to play and close their
eyes and think, why was [inaudible] we want to make sure-i want to make sure they remember me and remember the other folks who [inaudible] >> get out there and do it. who cares about what anybody else says. there will be poopal people that come up and want to wreck your ideas. that happen today eme when i went to candle stick part and wanted to [inaudible] people told me no left and right. whether you go out for something you are passionate about our something you want to grow in and feel people will say no. go out and get it done. i can be the strong leader female and i love
>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.
we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive.
you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash
or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here.
i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now. >> the hon. london breed: good morning, everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i want to thank you all for joining us here today to talk about public safety on a whole other level in light of the challenges that our city continues to face. you know, this has been a problem that