[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6596440,"mediaKeyId","3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2","parentId",3006170,"title","Votes at a glance: key actions taken by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 21, 2017","audioSeconds",12048,"startMs",425000,"endMs",12473000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2&start=425&end=12473","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2/thumbnail_425000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6596440/San-Francisco-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-taken-by-the-San-Francisco-Board-of-Supervisors-on-March-21-2017","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596440-31359390e90b4f6e089693f73ed79a1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639606&Signature=aILaeWEX3a-L4XXDsN604ygRravIodVEEymH96XhrCw6RyY4B0WZFLSpo~z00~kwZKfdf~kjoI8bbFxC-5gyDBIv9JsD3VcaKiBDT~kKFiadEANOQqF51DgS0MYt~iOyUR6NQ3~g2CkZp3Z94tOawbOe5w-AsffjSagrvl6EHfDMqHHHImKLkDS1QUx7jbUk3B-zchJR-hSHn8jfnwj2NHFlpQ1nxkzcTlPaTYz7QoESmf2XDpocE9Zzu9x1FkVo8nNLOsRSWCmfrMaf9nW28whK7Ut97Juu0n7fgHMnAx1mcXiueSrz7iCAUaJ1KkrbsizpQiR2ofQGfih6GkzG2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sanfrancisco Government tv","date","2025-04-16T03:52:00Z","article","At its March 21 meeting the San Francisco Board of Supervisors recorded a number of formal actions. Below are key votes and short descriptions of outcomes and next steps.

Votes at a glance

- Items 1–4 (consent): Passed unanimously (11–0). Routine consent matters were approved.

- Item 5 (MOU/amendment for municipal attorneys association payroll/wages): Finally passed unanimously 11–0.

- Item 6 (planning code amendment / Calle Evente Cuatro special use district): Passed unanimously 11–0.

- Item 7 (Ordinance restricting use of cash‑out proceeds for political campaigns while MOHCD funds outstanding): Failed (3 yes — Sheehy, Chang, Farrell; 8 no). See separate coverage for full debate.

- Items 8–10 (FEMA grants for Fire Department equipment): Adopted unanimously (11–0). Grants included approximately $61,000 for a rapid deployment dock (Item 8), ~$770,000 for a dive boat (Item 9), and ~$135,000 for fire investigations equipment (Item 10).

- Items 11–12 (Police Department gift of furniture from a private vendor): Adopted unanimously (11–0). Gifts valued at approximately $208,000 and $18,700 were accepted.

- Item 13 (Amendment to Administrative Code — short‑term rental registry verification): Passed on first reading (roll call recorded 10 ayes; Supervisor Farrell excused earlier). The ordinance requires hosting platforms to exercise reasonable care verifying a unit is on the city registry before accepting booking fees.

- Items 14–15 (Annual reports for Noe Valley and Ocean Avenue Community Benefit Districts): Adopted unanimously (11–0).

- Item 16 (Resolution urging state to allow local income taxes — as amended): Adopted after amendment (9 ayes, 2 no — supervisors Bridal and Farrell voted no; later the board re‑called and re‑adopted by revised tally 8 ayes and 3 no after procedural rescission). The resolution asks the California Legislature to amend state revenue code language to allow local jurisdictions to levy additional personal and corporate income taxes for local priorities.

- Items 21–22 (Sale of 1660/1680 Mission and 30 Van Ness): Adopted (9–2; No votes: Breed, Safaie). The sales generate $52,000,000 and $70,000,000 respectively and include leaseback terms; proceeds are intended to help fund construction of 1500 Mission Street (a proposed new city office building). Board requested additional financial analysis on alternatives and monitoring of affordable‑housing commitments.

- Item 23 (RPD grant application to state Department of Housing and Community Development — $7.5 million): Adopted unanimously (11–0). Resolution authorizes Parks Department to apply for state funding for park/community facility development.

- Items 26 and 27 (various resolutions adopted without committee reference): Item 26 adopted unanimously. Item 27 (support for SB 807 — teacher recruitment and retention tax credits and exemptions) adopted unanimously.

Other outcomes

- Items 17–20 (public hearing on 2675 Folsom Street) were continued to April 18 after a motion by Supervisor Ronan; the continuance was adopted unanimously following public comment.

What to expect next

- Several approved items (the property sales, FEMA grants, and grant applications) require follow‑up closings, entitlement steps, or reporting by city departments.
- The Board asked city financial staff for additional analysis of financing options tied to the 1500 Mission financing (including COPs vs. sale‑proceeds scenarios). The Controller and DRE were asked to report back within weeks.

This is a concise summary of formal roll‑call items on the March 21 agenda; more detailed coverage on the affordable‑housing cash‑out proposal and the Mission/Van Ness property sales are available in separate reports.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 149007960003/21/17 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of roll‑call outcomes and key details from the Board's March 21 meeting, including passed FEMA grants, property sales, and other resolutions; notes items continued or failed.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6596445,"Supervisors continue environmental hearing on 2675 Folsom to April 18 to allow community negotiations",1621,4486000,6107000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2&start=4486&end=6107","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2/thumbnail_4486000.jpg","/articles/6596445/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-continue-environmental-hearing-on-2675-Folsom-to-April-18-to-allow-community-negotiations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596445-7e670d5c378a3a3613137a66a63752de/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639606&Signature=FR3K6~ib22qKc7GrYpYsBhupdN-yWQ3hFfhUo~pKfstu-5yD5~bMQ5HIJBgyDp55ujLlpKBtFpXPiHeyZojOhzJmqV0KmgLz~G0r9D8t~2X6a5RLcfNwjQ5LTmP0sgV336QLedtthgxBkOxNoRYf2Q~U9mCOhncZiJkbVXUFxJTSHACQ4sLGdUpYgCpPWoljAaykUBJt9AXLdl~HGhu5i5dpueEGg-g3RF60APwClTNxHxaWj-kU1vvkzy6K9EbM15ZozIX9TPZasYUoGuNzzQTkLcRCY74zsMxb2Z02b1L151UWg7bfku3nuiq-n~k3JhQl07e-Pv1OCutrpzMT3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors continued items 17–20 — a contested project and related environmental determinations for 2675 Folsom Street — to the April 18 meeting after Supervisor Ronan moved to give the parties more time to negotiate potential agreements.

Supervisor Ronan said she \"would like to make a motion to continue items 17, 18, 19, and 20 to the April 18 board of supervisors meeting,\" noting she remained hopeful the appellants and the developer could reach an agreement that would remove the need for an appeal. The items had been continued from an earlier hearing and concern a proposed demolition of warehouse buildings and construction of a four‑story, 40‑foot residential building; staff reported the Planning Commission had approved a community plan exemption on Sept. 22, 2016.

Public commenters were split. Laura Clark of EMBACTION urged urgency in building housing and criticized delay tactics, saying \"housing delayed is housing denied.\" By contrast, speakers from the Latino Cultural District and several neighborhood residents supported the continuance to preserve cultural assets, seek stronger community benefits and reduce displacement risk. Labor representatives and building trades leaders requested more time to secure union hiring commitments and ensure local job opportunities.

The Board heard from community organizers, renters and unions before taking a roll‑call vote; the clerk recorded the continuance as adopted and the items were rescheduled for April 18. Supervisor Ronan and Supervisor Cohen seconded the motion on the floor before the public comment period and the formal continuance vote.

The continuance preserves the project's administrative record and allows additional negotiations between developer and appellants; the project remains on the table for the Board's April 18 meeting.","Items 17–20 (project at 2675 Folsom Street) were continued to April 18 after Supervisor Ronan moved to allow more time for parties to negotiate. Public speakers were split between urging speed to build housing and asking for more time to secure community benefits and prevent displacement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":46,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6596450,"Board approves sale of 1660/1680 Mission and 30 Van Ness to raise funds for new city office; debate on affordability and financing continues",5231,7242000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2&start=7242&end=12473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2/thumbnail_7242000.jpg","/articles/6596450/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-approves-sale-of-16601680-Mission-and-30-Van-Ness-to-raise-funds-for-new-city-office-debate-on-affordability-and-financing-continues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596450-be07faba0be1ae63456b12e6f489d275/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639606&Signature=T6XTDqjJE7HMpkfvbBkFMp1AzVyWAA~X4UFLiu~MVte4O2hlNg8gCle~opsh-DzNI6EgfDWnChKj2~1uKyYZXnSOxern0JlCDzeqxaUIsE7j8QchVqbE170ZWV~X0TdoLt5deA3WnAvsBP3X~ZslWBrPXYrviLkekyM~KsL9xxCGtrC5u-WUU2ZefzOwxMOuNJYwxwcHuVfDa4r78LIa0CvtfNh2IVS8mEZqeLiMMSZyfQlUBsMzjOgt9gHSQXcJWh6wm8~Ub7ua3SYJ4Iaag9TLBDISg68JQMw4L2s9G4DkIMrA6HFsfLLNxTB8PxwalMkUepsw19eOdMzli15J9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 21 approved two related property sales aimed at funding construction of a consolidated city office building at 1500 Mission Street. The board approved a $52 million purchase and sale agreement for city‑owned properties at 1660 and 1680 Mission Street (to Prosperity 2 LLC) and a $70 million purchase and sale agreement for 30 Van Ness Avenue (to Lendlease Development Inc.), with leaseback terms that would temporarily house city departments.

Supervisor Jane Kim, the sponsor for the 30 Van Ness item, said the deals strike a balance between generating revenue for a needed city office building and producing new on‑site and middle‑income housing without city up‑zoning. \"With this deal, we have achieved Proposition C goals of 25% on‑site affordable and middle income housing without any upzoning,\" Kim said, and noted the agreements could yield an additional 40–60 middle‑income units and potential steps to reach 33% affordable housing if up‑zoning proceeds.

Supervisor Safaie and others questioned whether the city had exhausted alternatives, including retaining ownership of 1660/1680 Mission and issuing additional certificates of participation (COPs) to finance construction. Safaie raised concerns that the proposed leasebacks would raise rent for departments that currently occupy city buildings and that the city may have given up a rare site — 30 Van Ness — that could be used for a much larger housing outcome if retained.

Controller Ben Rosenfield and Department of Real Estate Director John Updike described trade‑offs. Rosenfield estimated that if the city borrowed the full cost of the 1500 Mission project instead of applying sale proceeds, the per‑square‑foot rental cost to the city would rise roughly 23% and the difference in debt service over 30 years could be on the order of $177 million. Updike noted market timing: appraisals and demand make early monetization of the assets attractive to maximize proceeds for the office project.

Lendlease representatives said their intention is to rehabilitate the office base and build residential on top, with a commitment to 25% on‑site affordable housing. Alexa Arena of Lendlease told supervisors the company intends to obtain entitlements during the period when the city could lease the building back, then proceed with a residential component. Updike added the purchase and sale agreement includes deed restrictions requiring affordable housing contributions if redevelopment occurs, though purchasers could pay fees when the agreement allows.

The board's roll call recorded nine ayes (Sheehy, Chang, Yi, Cohen, Farrell, Feuer, Kim, Peskin, Ronan) and two no votes (Breed, Safaie). Supporters called the agreements an opportunity to reduce future reliance on the private office rental market and secure funding for a long‑term civic office campus; critics said the city should analyze alternative financing that would allow the city to keep more of its real‑estate assets and do more on housing.

The agreements require later entitlement approvals and development decisions; sale closings and leaseback terms were noted in the staff reports and are subject to conditions and budget appropriations for any rental differentials.","The Board approved two purchase‑and‑sale agreements to sell 1660 & 1680 Mission Street and 30 Van Ness Avenue, generating funds for a proposed new city office building at 1500 Mission. The votes were 9–2. Supervisors debated whether the city should retain the properties and whether the deals deliver enough on affordable‑housing goals.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6596454,"Board rejects ordinance that would have barred taxpayer‑backed affordable housing cash‑outs for political campaigns",6366,529000,6895000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2&start=529&end=6895","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006170-57b37bc2f0010be04af46db8b40ff4c2/thumbnail_529000.jpg","/articles/6596454/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-rejects-ordinance-that-would-have-barred-taxpayerbacked-affordable-housing-cashouts-for-political-campaigns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596454-f52c3f6e4f8d2740537b101db8f62d78/orig.mp4?Expires=1773639606&Signature=W4lwZmdhWHyRB1-ZRAKmU0W74B1ZudzxxYbA40PV2p2~A9DisC1KkHzPPJyH~xaVXQBZh~-E-bzOAUwoUYzCTGsPMBkpNX5OqjaV58bTdvgJCkWAWEOAzVnVoaYGCAhYsGGPG~HgeRdO75dbHXDRI0t7vrfbRs0MWHot~BgpImlsJBJP7XZj-~4FeOdCx4GSemuicwy490D997icBokYL8P7aJIgRMTsVUPUiZK~24RWlQUG7dAa9G9i0zbOj7t~bz4-Tp550dpNiZjm4Biq~UXEPUBCPGL2PqgiWuGPNy5zoBuN2JumHN4LTnSXQ6lmoMnGo5uoDiXDgZbckHWjDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 3–8 on March 21 to reject an ordinance that would have amended the Administrative Code to bar use of cash‑out proceeds from affordable housing projects funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars for political campaigns while city loans or grants remained outstanding.

Proponents said the ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Farrell, was aimed at preventing developers who benefit from Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) loans from leveraging public investment into political spending. \"I firmly believe that we should ensure every penny available for affordable housing in San Francisco is being solely used for affordable housing needs, period,\" Supervisor Farrell said during the debate.

Supporters argued the change would close a loophole in local rules and the city’s budget process by making clear that refinancing proceeds tied to projects that still carry MOHCD dollars must first repay the city or remain dedicated to housing. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the board his office had approved the proposed amendment \"as to form,\" meaning there were colorable arguments to defend it in court if the ordinance passed.

Opponents, including Supervisors Kim and Peskin, said the ordinance risked chilling lawful nonprofit political speech and unfairly singled out affordable‑housing organizations. \"Government must be careful when it crafts ordinances that restrict First Amendment rights,\" Supervisor Kim said, calling the measure \"designed to chill the lawful free speech of nonprofit organizations.\" Peskin noted existing Internal Revenue Service rules and argued any restriction should be broader and apply to all recipients of public subsidy, not only nonprofits building affordable housing.

A series of amendments proposed by Farrell in response to developer concerns — including language clarifying the scope of permissible spending consistent with IRS 501(c)(3) rules and removing references to developer fees — were adopted before the final vote. The final roll call on the ordinance as amended recorded ayes from Supervisors Sheehy, Chang and Farrell; Chang and Sheehy said they supported restricting use of taxpayer dollars while loans remained outstanding. The ordinance failed when eight supervisors voted no.

The ordinance's central operative text would have applied \"during any period while a loan, grant, or other funds provided by MOHCD remains outstanding,\" according to the sponsor's description at the meeting. Proponents said the measure targeted situations where developers refinance a project, do not repay the city's investment, and then use proceeds for political purposes; opponents said many refinancings fully repay city loans and that other remedies exist.

Because the ordinance was defeated, the Board did not adopt the proposed Administrative Code change. Supporters said they would continue pushing for policy or administrative steps to address the issue; MOHCD officials told the board they plan to work with developers to craft a clearing policy for cash‑out proceeds. The clerk recorded the item as failed on the final roll call.","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 3–8 to defeat an ordinance that would have prohibited nonprofit affordable‑housing developers from using cash‑out proceeds while city loans remained outstanding to fund political campaigns. Supporters said the measure closed a loophole; opponents warned of First Amendment and fairness concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key actions taken by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 21, 2017

Supervisors continue environmental hearing on 2675 Folsom to April 18 to allow community negotiations

Board approves sale of 1660/1680 Mission and 30 Van Ness to raise funds for new city office; debate on affordability and financing continues

Board rejects ordinance that would have barred taxpayer‑backed affordable housing cash‑outs for political campaigns