[{"_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",6601760,"mediaKeyId","3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205","parentId",3005827,"title","Board approves multiple ordinances, contracts and appointments in Jan. 6 meeting; several items continued","audioSeconds",5856,"startMs",225000,"endMs",6081000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205&start=225&end=6081","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205/thumbnail_225000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6601760/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-approves-multiple-ordinances-contracts-and-appointments-in-Jan-6-meeting-several-items-continued","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601760-e26db90205a0a57988635e8bff0bc12e/orig.mp4?Expires=1777573491&Signature=PBhM~2M7DhaHQN5U5qEwJzivKWV5v52E8SON0q-DROQiq-IJBivl~hoMYw6wo4ADKQARmErfBqkcM90xr9y7WT9apRSNnrC4xejcaENK2ohklp7OjyLauEIuBwHo67pQHr~~J~tbYNlpMZm56TmnSE04GkDC8AYDsZfKAbbnvzke6niMM~oDohJnMhPbcTRLhmeo5CWvOD2kC~bcc0WdrdnWFb6Ug485fMJE0-r6-91GWLDgU-LRk9hgPHogeZ90046DAhV26VGIGfMHxGiB9w9od0HYo~NHqrABE2yUwCSvgDiuXjpBODyXVuSq7gqwRQBg8vYIb5hTmx2V4EAiNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Francisco County, CA","date","2025-04-16T02:46:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors completed a lengthy Jan. 6 session by adopting a number of ordinances, resolutions and appointments on consent or with brief roll calls, and by continuing several items for a later meeting.

Key actions the board adopted (items listed with the board's short descriptions as read into the record):

- Consent items 1–16 were adopted by single roll call (consent calendar); clerk announced \"there are 10 ayes.\" (items 1–16 adopted).

- Item 18: Adopted findings disapproving Planning Department CEQA exemption for 2626 Filbert Street (roll call, 10 ayes).

- Item 19: Adopted findings disapproving Planning Department CEQA exemption for 2655 Scott Street (motion approved).

- Item 20: Ordinance amending the height district designation for the Mission Street theater properties (passed on final reading; roll call recorded 6 ayes, 4 noes; ordinance finally passed).

- Item 21: Ordinance deappropriating approximately $998,000 of general fund and approximately $761,000 of federal direct grant revenue for the Community Justice Center (roll call recorded 6 ayes, 4 noes; ordinance finally passed).

- Item 22: Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to change delinquency dates, conform partnership rules to state law and eliminate the tax stamp provision and transfer tax review board. The ordinance initially passed (roll call recorded 6 ayes, 4 noes) but the board later voted to rescind that vote and continue the matter for one week (rescind motion passed, 8 ayes, 2 noes); item continued to next meeting for second reading.

- Item 23: Ordinance delegating to the City Attorney authority to grant or deny property tax refund claims (roll call recorded 8 ayes, 2 noes; ordinance passed).

- Item 24: Ordinance adding Chapter 90A on music and cultural sustainability policy and authorizing the Entertainment Commission to pursue an online permitting system (roll call recorded 10 ayes; ordinance passed).

- Item 25/26: Appropriation and emergency public‑works contract matters (resolutions adopted as announced by clerk).

- Item 27: Resolution approving a municipal transportation agency contract for the Central Subway project with Central Subway Partnership in an amount not to exceed approximately $147,000,000 (resolution adopted; same house, same call).

- Items 28–31: A batch of resolutions (water system program amendment, liquor license transfers, etc.) adopted (same house, same call as announced).

- Item 32: Transfer of type‑48 on‑sale general public premises liquor license to 115 Mason Street was debated and is covered in a separate report; the resolution was adopted as amended later in the meeting.

- Item 33: Ordinance amending zoning map use classification of Block 1098, Lot 9 (first reading adopted; roll call recorded 10 ayes).

- Items 34–35: Ordinances on Mission Street designation and summary vacation of portion of Stevenson Street (passed on first reading).

- Items 40, 41, 43, 45, 53, 55 (committee nominations/appointments and other items) were approved by \"same house, same call\" as announced.

- Items 59–66 (adoption without committee reference) were approved by roll call where recorded; item 64 (appointment to the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission) was considered separately and a motion excusing Supervisor Campos passed (9 ayes).

The clerk's readout and roll calls provide the official vote tallies where recorded. Several items were continued for more information or second reading, most notably the veto‑override on the conditional‑use ordinance (item 17) and the Business and Tax Regulations Code ordinance (item 22), which had its earlier vote rescinded and the matter continued for a week. The board also spent substantial time on the liquor license at 115 Mason Street and on several appointments and infrastructure contract approvals.

A number of items were adopted with no extended debate and were announced \"same house, same call\" or \"the motion is approved,\" typical language for consent or routine calendar items. Members and staff said matters continued would return for further action at future meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 123122880001/06/09 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors passed a slate of ordinances, resolutions and appointments on Jan. 6, 2009, including allocations, infrastructure contracts and administrative code changes. Several items were continued for further consideration, including the veto‑override item and a tax code amendment.","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},6601765,"Supervisors disapprove Planning Department's CEQA exemption determinations for two projects",85,614000,699000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205&start=614&end=699","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205/thumbnail_614000.jpg","/articles/6601765/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-disapprove-Planning-Departments-CEQA-exemption-determinations-for-two-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601765-eaf4127c3606f8ba105675a194b887aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1777573491&Signature=VVEl0EKdHU7J55rWdIDgzvKqaphq1mBpTgbPBGgM0DE6QyUc9xg0EED12D6mlmI0c8wCs9yNAVYVGwokQhed5Ww8NrzBSqnZwAJ-G8quoBszllgYc~SeWzOQ46S-p-Rb6obdiPrH7xHoW5x~g0x~Tw~pqTQNiQXt2uFOjMA~KD0hrLSK0SdaYaXJBqPRvGOf9kxiGbeV6BH0p-4Y6S3XJ6VU6UScEcdN5qcmVnyxo5hSprIVYTz-u7Vhl~AoXlWRckyymz57I7WEJNp9PxPjgC7J5MXOF89WhT28kQVhZZFeewINRXL9pEvoS8aZmEzd8J6tT0K~U1Pqp~wGBzs8Sw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors voted to disapprove Planning Department determinations that two proposed projects were categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On item 18, the board adopted findings related to disapproving the Planning Department's determination that the 2626 Filbert Street project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The motion passed on a roll call with 10 ayes.

On item 19, supervisors adopted analogous findings for the 2655 Scott Street project, disapproving the Planning Department's categorical exemption determination. The board recorded the motion as approved.

Clerical announcements before the votes cited the Planning Department determinations and framed the board's decision as adopting findings to disapprove those determinations, returning the matters for further environmental review or consideration consistent with CEQA procedures. No subsequent final project approvals were recorded on Jan. 6; the board's actions were limited to the CEQA exemption determinations.","The board adopted motions disapproving the Planning Department's findings that two projects — at 2626 Filbert Street and 2655 Scott Street — were categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":79,"_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},6601768,"Supervisor motion to override mayor veto on dwelling‑unit protections continued to next meeting",337,277000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205&start=277&end=614","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205/thumbnail_277000.jpg","/articles/6601768/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisor-motion-to-override-mayor-veto-on-dwellingunit-protections-continued-to-next-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601768-364eb069eaefc4a401adec91276c5ee8/orig.mp4?Expires=1777573491&Signature=m~GeMGDCzI6eI8okwkt168zGaXevuMm2IcPQ-EPhMmTHIh6sRjXpJOHAUx9cTjjJLU8Y-sqeNxmzob-B1kp~jxAtINXfR--IEOLG3kppJTee8hnFr-JhocN-BXtnesbWJRSJ0oFv8Xih3paR9G-F5Hdb5i8gd-p6wN6q8gqlkyVYa3vC0GYLey5JhDQm1fZ39oQDJ6ESvslB06Kfn28waMFXpbnbpw~xmb8iojXC9mYBeQgvDJd9duG4aWQW0nI3Pz-8HSZ~uM8Ide5DIsCt4xbOqepTnGGKakzTSrkgO34FeeCc0l9JGLHDucHQ5~IotS8GIMowm-38b94ak19kzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors voted to continue consideration of a proposed override of Mayor Gavin Newsom's veto of an ordinance that would have required conditional‑use authorization for the elimination of existing dwelling units through mergers, conversions or demolition.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, sponsor of the original ordinance, urged colleagues to override the veto in order to protect existing affordable, rent‑controlled housing and to prevent what he called \"de facto demolitions\" driven by speculative alterations. \"I think it does offer us an opportunity...to safeguard what is often phrased the most affordable housing in San Francisco because it already exists,\" McGoldrick said.

Several supervisors noted the matter required a supermajority to override the mayor and suggested delaying the vote until a full complement of supervisors could participate. Supervisor Tom Daley moved to continue the item to Jan. 13; the motion was seconded and the board voted 6 ayes and 4 noes to continue the item for one week.

Because the board was not at full complement — a vacancy existed after a supervisor's recent swearing‑in to the Superior Court — several members said they preferred to wait so that any override effort would include the full board. The clerk read the charter provision explaining that a yes vote would override the mayor's veto and a no vote would sustain it. The board did not take an override vote that day.

No formal override motion or vote was recorded; the item remains on the agenda for the board's next regular meeting on Jan. 13, 2009.","A proposed override of the mayor's veto on an ordinance that would require conditional use authorization before eliminating dwelling units was continued to Jan. 13 after supervisors agreed to delay a final vote so a full board could consider it.",{"_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},6601774,"Supervisors approve transfer of Union Square Sports Bar liquor license with conditions after police urged denial",4569,1245000,5814000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205&start=1245&end=5814","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005827-baac1f56caa1e062c17c0c7d1ac8b205/thumbnail_1245000.jpg","/articles/6601774/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-approve-transfer-of-Union-Square-Sports-Bar-liquor-license-with-conditions-after-police-urged-denial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601774-251f1663e67f1f1160ab7f8b9f535b52/orig.mp4?Expires=1777573491&Signature=B0RAaXuaXlisPUVMqGK9rYwFhChUdur9FBI7gezulYsohA~14iCLv0ztpoKB59SmeROIayaweRYInsJD8DtMJmrkgJCA-rJXsAdmc4mBXD~z4WoNYhjoCK2nh4sbfbSyYon1IBOlQLKZ4RSFIqB-dywd4-IgxzHMFzNHj-aXKqwbNTUrad541mfhZHGZlmVDzeIaeXOEIWAAb8UPdi2ENENd9KCvQ5De-WCsIfD3zFKxZ0GdrvyoCBvwiT0H62pZjVdAoAaVKtaTGba8VTm-ijx4etwCownIcLQ27X2h02BmbIqDO1MJwTmQhojFWSYbN88bObZ-Vs3MA1tK-Mh18w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the transfer of a type-48 on‑sale general public premises liquor license to 115 Mason Street, approving a package of conditions the Police Department proposed even as the department recommended denial.

The panel voted to adopt the license transfer and attached conditions after a lengthy discussion about community safety, noise, and proximity to residences. Inspector Dave Falzon of the San Francisco Police Department listed 16 conditions the department would seek if the board approved the transfer, including hours of alcohol service limited to 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., a prohibition on alcohol sales for off‑premise consumption, a no‑loitering requirement, graffiti removal within 72 hours, minimum interior and exterior lighting standards, and a requirement to keep at least two surveillance cameras with recordings retained for at least two weeks.

\"The police department is still recommending this application for denial, but in the event the board elects to approve it, we are\" proposing the conditions, Inspector Falzon told the board and outlined specifics. He also proposed that the premises keep at least two operational surveillance cameras and that recordings be maintained for a minimum of two weeks.

Supervisor David Chiu moved to approve the transfer with the conditions; Supervisor John Avalos (listed in the transcript as the motion second under Supervisor Ellsberg) seconded the motion. The board initially voted to separate three conditions (the training/employee education condition, the surveillance camera requirement and the requirement for a security guard) from the rest of the package and adopt the remainder unanimously. On the separated conditions the vote was split during the first round of voting.

After further discussion and follow‑up conversations between supervisors and the property owner, Supervisor Mark Daly proposed removing one sentence in the security‑guard condition that would have required the guard to \"maintain a valid guard card from the California Department of Consumer Affairs.\" The board voted to strike that sentence and then adopted the resolution as amended. The final recorded vote on the amended resolution was 10 ayes, 0 noes.

The package of conditions that remains part of the approval includes limits on hours (10 a.m.–2 a.m.), prohibitions on under‑21 access while alcohol is served, bans on off‑premise alcohol sales, no street seating or expansion onto sidewalks, required ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) licensee education for employees, minimum interior and exterior lighting standards to avoid disturbing neighbors, a two‑camera minimum with retained recordings, graffiti removal obligations, a prohibition on structural changes without ABC approval, a litter‑removal obligation, and a restriction on exterior advertising that promotes alcoholic beverages.

The Police Department emphasized that its recommendation remained denial, but Falzon said the department prepared the list of conditions \"in the event the board elects to approve\" the transfer. Supervisors who supported the transfer cited the applicant's prior record and community outreach; supervisors who objected cited neighborhood proximity to housing and public‑safety concerns.

The resolution passed as amended; the record shows subsequent clarifying language removing the guard‑card requirement but leaving in the on‑site security requirement and other operational conditions.","The Board of Supervisors approved the transfer of a type-48 public premises liquor license to 115 Mason Street with strict operational conditions after the Police Department recommended denial; supervisors later removed a new requirement that on-site security staff hold a specific state guard card.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves multiple ordinances, contracts and appointments in Jan. 6 meeting; several items continued

Supervisors disapprove Planning Department's CEQA exemption determinations for two projects

Supervisor motion to override mayor veto on dwelling‑unit protections continued to next meeting

Supervisors approve transfer of Union Square Sports Bar liquor license with conditions after police urged denial