[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6596471,"mediaKeyId","3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24","parentId",3006145,"title","Supervisors vote to send PDR/arts protections to November ballot after heated debate","audioSeconds",2852,"startMs",5053000,"endMs",7905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24&start=5053&end=7905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24/thumbnail_5053000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6596471/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-vote-to-send-PDRarts-protections-to-November-ballot-after-heated-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596471-fff6f5f985f9846537518dbb952e43ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1776698789&Signature=V9ufFQJ13D3cef1haJc8VQmKHsZz2GORDcqcL2-6ipvyzPGUMiQgiBIlF7dFNKT8hvn9asixPTJfloJ~3PhWs48xQlPWIIE2Z-byVa2PA53aaEyY-1ACcfHmOUWqxdN3YJkLeFutv9q4V2iowzArrtx0kaQ122zsKSfnPier5NstB2qjP9IFCRCK-NFkjwqxwrYuRlaeCy1SG5Zrzm4-YcTQZrqzjf1wxCCJHP837iO3OJpUN0gvYSzwrB2eLnDJEPTGPBtDpJOdwqM9tqkLMcph7by8lIKVHLYqtWq190hjqkCDRchKJVRXfC6~-a0luAUjbeZkuUW5dnQlr6Aj3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Francisco County, CA","date","2025-04-16T04:06:00Z","article","The Board of Supervisors voted 7‑4 on Aug. 2 to place a proposed ordinance on the Nov. 8 ballot that would impose land‑use controls to protect production, distribution and repair (PDR) space and certain arts uses in the South of Market and Mission neighborhoods.

Supervisor Jane Kim, the ordinance’s sponsor, said the measure is a response to “alarming loss” of PDR and arts space and follows more than a year of outreach to arts groups, small businesses and other stakeholders. Supporters urged voters to approve the measure to preserve jobs and cultural spaces and to require replacement or mitigation when PDR space is converted.

Opponents, including Supervisor Scott Wiener, said the ordinance is effectively a rezoning of large parts of the city and should be addressed through the board’s legislative process rather than by ballot measure. Wiener and other critics argued the proposal could have unintended consequences for job creators and manufacturers and urged more collaborative work with industry groups.

Supervisor Kim said the measure includes compromises they believed could not be secured solely through the legislative process, including replacement requirements for projects already in the development pipeline; supporters argued voters should decide whether to preserve PDR and arts space at the scale proposed.

Public commenters included artists, arts organizations and neighborhood and business advocates. Cell Space, Museum‑ and community‑oriented groups, and representatives of the Mission District and Latino Cultural District described recent displacements of arts and community spaces and urged supervisors to send the measure to voters so residents could weigh in directly.

Calibrating tradeoffs was a recurring theme. Supervisor David Campos said he would support the measure as appropriately limited to SoMa and the Mission, so other districts could seek tailored rules. Supervisor Wiener and others urged more negotiation with industry groups before finalizing measures that alter zoning and land‑use processes.

On the roll call, the measure to submit the ordinance to the ballot passed 7‑4, with Supervisors Tang, Wiener, Cohen and Farrell voting no. The board also agreed to allow future amendments by ordinance only with a supermajority threshold in the ordinance text, a concession the sponsor said was intended to encourage future legislative collaboration.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the measure addresses rapid loss of affordable space for artists, makers and small PDR businesses in neighborhoods that drive San Francisco’s cultural and economic identity. Opponents said the ballot route bypassed full local legislative negotiation and risked unintended effects on employers and pipelines of local manufacturing space.

What’s next: With board approval, the ordinance language will be printed in the November ballot materials and the electorate will decide whether to adopt the PDR protections for specified neighborhoods.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 147012120008/02/16 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors voted 7‑4 on Aug. 2 to send a proposed ordinance that would protect production, distribution and repair (PDR) and arts uses in South of Market and the Mission to the Nov. 8 ballot.","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},6596476,"Supervisors delay vote on Caltrain funding supplement after members seek stronger oversight, funding clarity",8322,1089000,9411000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24&start=1089&end=9411","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24/thumbnail_1089000.jpg","/articles/6596476/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-delay-vote-on-Caltrain-funding-supplement-after-members-seek-stronger-oversight-funding-clarity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596476-b60e7b8537aa7e78a77553d82754b2fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1776698789&Signature=kPhkTMJW9TqMciK13kxGAWileTjo8cBgI20HVQxSe2N~ik0BxRrDQ59US1L9G30fEuQu2C4fj616mr4KAMkw6YHX1tZqsoYoMhiNW2zmmargO1pfY8hJiw0R93noi9vPu7E1MQ7OraD9KuedauAwniOjlPBiFeu6LhSLObLmqiXv5IsMpPoZy4l-kujVdsDISyX4WdKpHV8ZpMX0jXD7XfV-H4SxyOgOPhlPz2j1kB3UU5~7By1k3J79Lvv1wU4hB67tvr5CMGKhDB9NnCLEk2GQ2DJG14TozGJbAUIExpU9CPJRWMt-2YXlamQ6kiw06djcCoCL9nt4DkxbKhqrvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Aug. 2 deferred action on a seven‑party supplement to a 2012 memorandum of understanding intended to advance Peninsula Corridor Electrification (Caltrain electrification), after supervisors said they needed stronger oversight language and clearer answers about city fiscal exposure.

Supporters said the measure is time‑sensitive because federal grant and bid timelines could be jeopardized if San Francisco does not sign the supplement soon. Opponents and some supporters said the city should secure a written oversight protocol that shields the general fund before becoming a formal funding partner.

The item opened as a resolution authorizing a seven‑party supplement to the MOU and drew sustained debate on the board floor and from Caltrain and city staff. Supervisor Jane Kim introduced two amendments intended to preserve flexibility in negotiating protocols; Supervisor Cohen read and moved further amendments aimed at strengthening oversight. “Electrification of Caltrain … are a priority for all of us,” Supervisor Cohen said when she presented her changes and asked that stronger oversight protocols continue to be negotiated while allowing the region to meet federal deadlines.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin pressed for specificity about costs and risks to the city. He said the project had grown from an original $1.5 billion estimate to $2.2 billion and that San Francisco’s share had risen from $60 million to $80 million. “Of that $20 million additional dollars we have only identified $4 million of that and $16 million remains to be identified,” Peskin said, adding that he wanted “a mechanism to do that” in writing before approving the MOU supplement.

Representatives from the mayor’s office and Caltrain staff responded. Julian (Jillian in the transcript) Gillette of the mayor’s office said removing a protocol reference from the resolution would “allow the city extra time for administrative review to amplify and review and potentially beef up the protocol so that it's adequate for review of this project.” A Caltrain staffer, identified as Casey, said Caltrain and other funding partners had discussed the oversight language and urged timely board action, noting federal bid deadlines and partners’ votes in favor.

Board members also cited a July peer‑review report that raised concerns about schedule risk and oversight. Supervisor David Campos noted the report found that “the probability of meeting the October implementation schedule is doubtful” and that “Caltrain oversight and TASI engagement needs to be strengthened,” and asked what potential impact that could have on the city’s general fund. City staff and Caltrain said they were still assessing the implications.

The controller’s office offered to work with city departments to draft stronger oversight language on a short timetable. Deputy Controller Todd Reedstrom said the office could “work with the department, in the coming days … and provide that assistance,” and indicated the controller’s staff could help prepare language patterned on prior oversight protocols the controller helped develop.

After extended debate, Supervisor Peskin proposed—and later withdrew—an amendment to condition approval on an approved oversight protocol. On a motion to continue consideration so the controller and departments could produce revised protocol language, the board voted 6‑5 to continue the item to a special meeting the following week; supervisors Wiener, Yi, Breed, Cohen and Farrell voted no. The motion passed, and the item was continued pending details on an agreed oversight protocol and further staff analysis.

Why it matters: Caltrain electrification is a regional infrastructure project that depends on federal grants, coordinated funding by multiple agencies and firm cost controls. Supervisors emphasized that approving a supplement without adequate oversight or clarity about San Francisco’s share of remaining costs could expose the city’s general fund to unplanned liabilities.

What’s next: The Board continued the item to the special board meeting scheduled for Aug. 8, 2016, to allow the controller’s office and city staff to draft recommended oversight language and for funding partners to finalize related documents. The board recorded a 6‑5 vote to continue rather than adopt the supplement at the Aug. 2 meeting, and supervisors said they would take up the matter again at the special meeting.

Quotes (attributed to speakers recorded in the meeting):
“Electrification of Caltrain and California high speed rail are a priority for all of us,” Supervisor Jane Cohen said while proposing amendments intended to preserve current negotiating leverage while keeping oversight negotiations open.

“Of that $20,000,000 additional dollars we have only identified $4,000,000 of that and $16,000,000 remains to be identified,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said, urging stronger fiscal protections and a mechanism to cover the remaining city commitment.

“The implication of severing the protocol is to allow the city extra time for administrative review to amplify and review and potentially beef up the protocol so that it's adequate for review of this project,” said Julian Gillette of the mayor’s office.

“We've been working with our partners since that time … The other funding partners have already taken action on this. All of them unanimously,” said Casey, a Caltrain staff representative urging timely action.

Ending: The board did not approve the seven‑party supplement on Aug. 2. Supervisors said they want written, stronger oversight protocols and clearer funding commitments before final approval; the item was continued to the special meeting on Aug. 8, 2016.","The Board of Supervisors agreed to continue action on a seven‑party supplement to a 2012 Caltrain memorandum of understanding after members raised concerns about oversight protocols and a $16.1 million San Francisco funding gap tied to Peninsula Corridor Electrification.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6596466,"Votes at a glance: key ordinances, settlements and resolutions approved July 26–Aug. 2 session",7913,110000,8023000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24&start=110&end=8023","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006145-8f8d78d633e65105c56924d1c3e1dd24/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6596466/San-Francisco-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-key-ordinances-settlements-and-resolutions-approved-July-26Aug-2-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6596466-aefe023beedc7869af5df2def6933513/orig.mp4?Expires=1776698789&Signature=bBO-RINIYaL01nTWJaZq53EO4J1y8J62BXlqSF3esftg3INrRFVbbVq84zRXDhgh5E0AEAIDABj72RQW482UUbYexF8MSdfnfPCA1F1r6QKlJTq3vFrYKc-8YUlip4Q1Z8UgapnD0u-oykCvra9UpLdj26~JqLv4T-k2G8G5HefM~JayO-t4~Wr79s-hwaKirpf4Fj7zmgDuqu6v0wyrRP3VNTaoGHYOg2evq0En-6XXllADk0h9gbWjSZHZ2MEngldJ0qGmxWcLLr6qYtuRxGUt5Q5j9BT7OB5Ru-h24NxXtmt28O7gcPqZVuabijFMQlzhkUvQFXY4cCzVOMZhUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Aug. 2 approved numerous routine and substantive items during a lengthy session that included consent calendar approvals, ordinances and resolutions across health, public works, planning and finance. Many consent items were approved unanimously; several larger matters were debated separately and are recorded in individual articles.

Highlights of actions taken (selected items):

- Item 6: Ordinance approving the Health Service System plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2017; passed unanimously (required nine votes, obtained unanimous approval).

- Item 7: Ordinance authorizing agreements to obtain access to fiber optic facilities on the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (Pacific Bell and Bay Bridge consortium); ordinance finally passed unanimously.

- Items 9–17: Ordinances authorizing settlements of multiple lawsuits (amounts published in the clerk’s minutes; e.g., Blue Cross restitution of $6,250,000 to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital in item 11); roll calls recorded and passed unanimously where specified.

- Item 10: Ordinance to authorize settlement in an excessive force/civil rights case for $90,000; President Breed was excused from the vote by motion; item finally passed (10 ayes).

- Item 18: Ordinance amending affordable‑housing unit allocation preferences to create an additional preference for people who live or work in San Francisco and for tenants displaced by fire; passed unanimously on roll call.

- Item 19: Ordinance to amend the planning code to address wireless telecommunications; passed unanimously.

- Item 20: Ordinance amending public works code to limit duration and number of street space occupancy permits in residential and neighborhood commercial districts; passed unanimously.

- Item 21: Ordinance revising residential unit conversion rules related to short‑term rentals; passed unanimously.

- Item 22: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Fire Code to require building owners and homeowners associations to provide fire safety information and training in multi‑unit buildings; passed unanimously.

- Items 24–25: Resolutions related to airport lease early termination and Terminal 1 retail lease amendment; adopted unanimously.

- Item 26: Resolution authorizing Laguna Honda Hospital gift fund acceptance and expenditure ($100,000 gift) for assistive technology equipment; adopted unanimously.

- Item 28–29: Resolutions authorizing multifamily housing revenue bond issuance (not to exceed $32,100,000) and related real estate purchase agreements for an 83‑unit project at 1036 Mission Street; amendments were read into the record and adopted as clarified; items passed without objection.

- Item 31: Resolution authorizing Treasure Island to submit a grant application for $12,000,000 (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program) and to accept funds jointly with TID Community Development LLC; approved unanimously.

- Item 32: Resolution authorizing a 10‑year lease for space used by San Francisco Public Library at 750 Brannan Street (initial year base rent approximately $943,000); passed 8‑3.

- Item 49: Resolution approving an amended report of delinquent charges for code enforcement violations and related assessment costs; the board amended the report to remove several line items after public comment and then adopted the amended resolution unanimously.

Procedure notes: Many items on the consent calendar were adopted using unanimous 'same house, same call' action. Several matters were presented with roll calls recorded in the transcript; where roll calls were requested, the clerk recorded individual yes/no votes. Items that required separate public hearings or significant public input were called out for additional comment and, where requested by board members or the public, were continued to later dates or amended prior to adoption.

A full accounting of individual item numbers, ordinances, resolutions, settlement amounts and vote tallies is maintained in the clerk's official minutes and the transcript.","The Board of Supervisors approved a broad set of routine and substantive measures during its Aug. 2 session, including settlements, code amendments, airport lease actions, housing bond authorizations and zoning changes; several contested items were continued or sent to the ballot as recorded below.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supervisors vote to send PDR/arts protections to November ballot after heated debate

Supervisors delay vote on Caltrain funding supplement after members seek stronger oversight, funding clarity

Votes at a glance: key ordinances, settlements and resolutions approved July 26–Aug. 2 session