In 2019, a developer applied to tear down a one-story building at 240–250 Church Street and replace it with 24 new homes. The building was once home to Sparky’s, a 24-hour LGBTQ-friendly diner that closed in 2016.
The old Sparky’s space still sits empty; the other half of the building is home to Thorough Bread and Pastry, a neighborhood bakery, which has been guaranteed a spot in the new building.
Earlier this month, the Planning Commission approved the project over the objections of the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District (CQCD), but that might not be the end of the story.
In San Francisco, a single person can appeal approved projects to the full Board of Supervisors, which is how a proposed South of Market tower with 500 homes, to be built on a parking lot, was recently sent back to the drawing board.
CQCD secretary Stephen Torres called into the hearing to say the seven-story building on Church Street should include a “queer gathering space” and more affordable units. It is slated to have three priced at 80 percent of area median income.
As The Frisc reported, the commissioners did ask the developers to meet with the CQCD to discuss community space. In response, architect Jeremy Schaub, the project sponsor, noted that outreach had taken place in 2018, before the CQCD was created. (The project is within the district boundaries.) Schaub added he would be happy to meet and discuss the design.
The Frisc spoke with Torres about his issues with the project, housing, development, and queer-friendly space in the Castro.
The conversation has been edited and condensed.
The Frisc: What is your vision for a queer gathering space in the development? Are you looking for another business? Or something like a meeting room?
Stephen Torres: We’re waiting to speak with [the developer]. Overall we’re concerned with the disappearance of queer spaces in our district and citywide. Our purpose as a cultural district is for the preservation of the culture of the Castro, but also in an inclusive and diverse way.
We’re interested to see what they’re willing to bring to the table. They [suggested] some sort of community room or temporary murals. We have a lot of temporary murals, and community rooms can be subject to prohibitive hours and maintenance. So these are not assurances that they will be an integrated part of the neighborhood or the cultural district itself.
Part of retaining our community is built around queer-affirming spaces of gathering, but also inclusive and affordable housing, and this is a luxury development. There are three what are deemed affordable housing units to buy, but I think people hear buzzwords like “affordable” and ask, “Well what could you possibly be opposed to?” Those are tricky terminologies.
The cultural district is asking for a community space, but you’re putting the onus on the developer to determine what exactly that would be. Is that right?
Yeah. This is their wheelhouse. Innovation and design are the trademarks of development, and we would love to see what they can bring to it.
The Planning Commission said the developers must plan a meeting. Have you spoken with them to plan it?
We haven’t heard from them yet. We are hoping to hear from them soon.
The new retail space, occupied by the Thorough Bread bakery, will have a back patio. Could that count as community space?
I don’t think those things are mutually exclusive, but I think that there’s so much more space on the ground floor that is going to be underutilized. At the hearing there was some uncertainty that Thorough Bread would even get to the final stage. Thorough Bread is part of our community and we hope that they are able to be included in the final iteration.
That was another concern for us, and I think the commissioners shared our concern: there were no proposed layouts for proper ventilation or things that are kind of inherent for a mid-scale bakery. Where will that go? Will that take up patio space? And when it comes to patio spaces, how many of these things are going to be dictated by noise and the residents above?
[Note: One commissioner asked about ventilation. She was satisfied with sponsor Jeremy Schaub’s answer and supported the project.]
When you said in the meeting that the development would not provide a welcoming and accessible space, were you talking about Thorough Bread?
No, not at all. [Schaub] said he wasn’t sure how relevant Sparky’s was, being that it closed five years ago. That kind of says something. The relevance was that it provided a 24-hour space of safety.
In the queer community, especially when you’re young, there aren’t a lot of spaces where you can go. Sometimes you’ve been kicked out of your home by your parents. Sometimes you’ve had to travel a very long distance. It’s not as if you can hang out in a well-heeled cocktail bar [laughing]. There was a service Sparky’s provided beyond being a diner, and that’s kind of a big legacy to follow. To have it not even addressed seemed unfortunate.
Will you seek a 24-hour space in your meeting with the developer?
I think that, again, we’d love to see what they have to bring to us first, and then we can go from there.
You’re saying you need a space to serve the function Sparky’s served, but you’re waiting for the developer to guess at what that is.
Well, we’re not anti-progress. We don’t want it to seem as though we’re limiting what their vision could be. I suppose that’s why we’re saying we’re excited to see what they can bring to the table. That’s part of this process. It’s part of growth in this city. We serve as an advisory board, providing that perspective and that context for people who want to establish these kinds of projects in our community.
Is it worth appealing this project to the Board of Supervisors? Under which circumstances might you do that?
We, of course, want to meet with the developer first. There are some concerns in terms of the neighbors or residents that live around that area, that some people may feel are worth an appeal. The height, there was significant concern around the shadows. We always have to think about in San Francisco the seismic concerns, especially where an underground watershed runs under that intersection. But as yet, no plans to appeal the project.
[Note: One commissioner in the meeting mentioned shadows but approved the project. No commissioner brought up seismic concerns.]
LGBTQ leaders rallied to support new housing near Polk Street that would include a renovated Grubstake Diner. Have you asked Juanita More and others for support on this issue?
We haven’t. We got very little notice on this. Aside from the good work of the Bay Area Reporter, we kind of didn’t find out. Part of this is that we’re one of the newer cultural districts. [But] there was ample opportunity for the developer to reach out to us.
Castro Merchants Association had kind of a tertiary outreach as did the [Castro Community Benefit District] but there was no follow-up. We were hearing that from a few stakeholders in the neighborhood. And the letters of recommendation were just from two residents, not any other community groups.
[Note: In the hearing, project architect Schaub said: “We had our neighborhood meeting, I believe it was 2018, where we mailed to all the neighboring groups and residents. We ended up meeting with some folks from the [Duboce] Triangle Neighborhood Association twice. And the owner also had outreach with the Castro Merchants Association. I don’t believe we’ve ever heard from the LGBTQ group. We would be happy to engage with them.”]
You said in the hearing that the project didn’t meet the criteria of “queer-affirming housing.” Do you get the sense that these homes would discriminate against queer people?
No, there’s nothing that implies that. But there are other factors. A lot of our community, both in our youth and our elders, live on fixed, low incomes. And this development does not seem to hold much promise for anyone within those parts of our community. It doesn’t allow, exactly, for someone who’s losing their housing in their area to try and jump into this situation.
So, queer-affirming housing would be housing that’s affordable and accessible to the low-income queer residents of the Castro?
Yes, the surrounding community and the legacy community. That is part of our district that is also evaporating. People are simply getting priced out.
If this project were, say, 50 percent affordable, would you still seek extra community space?
I’d have to circle back with my co-chair, but I think it would make a sizable difference in how we approached this, for sure.
Do you believe that a higher supply of housing, including market rate, leads to cheaper housing across the board?
I don’t think that one thing necessarily means the other. If you just OK wholesale development without oversight, that doesn’t make a lot of sense if the end goal is to provide adequate and truly affordable housing.
What’s your view on the right approach to building housing in the Castro and the city in general?
What we’re really trying to seek here is collaboration between developers and advocacy groups and organizations like the cultural district and other city agencies to ensure that the community’s needs are met. That’s what we’re all here for, right? So, getting back to 240–250 Church Street, communication is the key component that was missing. And, to answer your question, that’s probably one of the most simple starting points.
It costs just as much — around $700,000 — to build an affordable unit as a market-rate unit. We need 80,000 more homes in the next decade. Where does that money come from?
I mean, that process, to get the proposition on the ballot and secure the funding, these are all lengthy processes, unfortunately. So we can only work as quickly as we can.