[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6598896,"mediaKeyId","3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3","parentId",3021958,"title","Mayor Lurie outlines public‑safety, housing and economic goals at 100‑day address to supervisors","audioSeconds",202,"startMs",146000,"endMs",348000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3&start=146&end=348","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3/thumbnail_146000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6598896/San-Francisco-County/California/Mayor-Lurie-outlines-publicsafety-housing-and-economic-goals-at-100day-address-to-supervisors","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598896-a496006d2e63519c7bf4234d545286b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151332&Signature=aI2c90tWu5e9ivVHX14gLx84ADrPhoTT0qjnxn-A2Opm2EH1XLpZfri-YLSW38~~ch6aEh6jOGXmttbcMooyUv4UuRWgRi-v6hv5Pyj4HR~8N3wBMd-KdTpcDJv-s2vphO~uHZuaQAsaVTx9aFqPoEEeUiFIPdx20S6fAvImfLsekyOssT4ReJLP~7MWQlBebVGB2A-6dxci64asr-iHOoO0SllNuG7Ev5vbkcQAdc8JQQ72IwuLZariunKaHYZb2rGIdb8CDnvMxhVsT3qJs-qD8wuBEbQHFs2SGUiqSf1mWJtiyHJ~UuEYD5ZBNLTsRaxqhPrGp0dbjc2FE6BCTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Francisco County","date","2025-04-15T00:00:00Z","article","Mayor Daniel Lurie appeared before the Board of Supervisors on April 15 for a scheduled five‑minute mayoral appearance to mark roughly 100 days in office. He told the board the administration’s priorities are public safety, housing production, and economic recovery for downtown and neighborhood commercial corridors.

Key points the mayor made:
- Public safety first: The mayor said public safety is the administration’s top priority and cited recently reported drops in crime: property crime down 35% from last year; violent crime down 15%; and vehicle break‑ins at a 22‑year low. He also said Muni ridership has recovered to about 75% of 2019 levels.

- Housing and zoning: The mayor said the administration plans to pass a family‑zoning plan and to advance legislation to spur housing development in SoMa and downtown.

- Economic recovery and small business support: He said the administration moved to expand entertainment zones, renew the 'first year free' program for small businesses, and to pursue expedited legislation to unlock federal funds for infrastructure and health projects.

The mayor closed by describing a collaborative approach between City Hall and the Board of Supervisors and pledged to continue working “side by side” with supervisors while pursuing a budget that aims for fiscal sustainability.

Ending: The matter was filed after the mayor’s remarks and the mayor left the chamber; the board recorded the appearance in the minutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Francisco County - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Apr 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Mayor Daniel Lurie told the Board of Supervisors the administration is prioritizing public safety, downtown economic recovery and housing acceleration, and said property crime and violent crime were down year‑over‑year.","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},6598900,"Community speakers urge restoration of Dream Keeper Initiative funding at board meeting",463,8516000,8979000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3&start=8516&end=8979","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3/thumbnail_8516000.jpg","/articles/6598900/San-Francisco-County/California/Community-speakers-urge-restoration-of-Dream-Keeper-Initiative-funding-at-board-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598900-bf9583b4a58863109517e6b5786b7613/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151332&Signature=ZfhMJBlElsvPfWmzKZTlVQRTAFK9qZ37F2AQ67OmiDGrYsRoxUrNznk19nDb3cdzMWYWUUebo50HbmOQCWuqGirkfcNe~uuudLuVjTglTTU4CmVBKl8CUZb9cLOplaO9hOrKuXdlCPavFqA~attd2o0mkknzaUuaQHjqLlC-xTWnoSdzMlT7oDpZA3DeTyDkSet1nypVHdarObrXEsGafy1naXNJg-9T9N6ILiMd57WFLfUkok1qTWAsAKQPc03Jf4sTgclZV9uH6xNB5Ceacz60JpkQ4CHfOxj-RMPaGcYUUzeSQ8IsuxvHyim66UIv3sa2hFOFzC9kh3T9G6vxPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During general public comment on April 15, multiple speakers representing MegaBlack and Dream Keeper Initiative (DKI)‑funded organizations told the Board of Supervisors they had not been informed of major reductions in DKI funding and asked the board to restore prior levels.

Speakers described a history of DKI grants supporting community nonprofits and programs and warned that reductions jeopardize services. Several speakers said the administration cut the program’s annual allocations and that the community learned of steep reductions only through recent solicitations and notices.

What speakers said (summary of public comments): community members stated that the Dream Keeper Initiative originally funded at $60 million annually was later reduced (speakers cited an intermediate $45 million number and expressed concern that the RFP process and released grant pool now total far less, below $20 million per year). Speakers said the reduction undermines investments in Black‑serving community‑based organizations and the programs they run, including education and workforce efforts and community supports. Those speaking included representatives identifying as members or leaders of MegaBlack and other community organizations. They delivered a formal letter to the board and clerk during the meeting and urged direct engagement and restoration of funding.

Why it matters: Dream Keeper Initiative funding has been an important local resource for community programs. Claiming reduced allocations and limited outreach, speakers said the cuts risked program continuity and outcomes that organizers say demonstrated measurable success. The public record indicates a demand for clarity from the mayor’s office and the Human Rights Commission about annual funding levels, RFP structures and timelines for awards.

Board response and context: Several supervisors on the dais referenced working on related community investments and noted the need for transparent information; the mayor and city offices were acknowledged earlier in the meeting for staff support and public engagement. The board did not take an immediate vote on DKI funding at this meeting; speakers requested follow‑up meetings and full funding restoration to previously publicized levels.

Ending: Community members asked the board to use its oversight role to seek a clear accounting of DKI funding decisions, to restore or reallocate funds where appropriate, and to ensure timely, transparent communication with grant applicants and community stakeholders.","Multiple community speakers at the April 15 Board of Supervisors meeting urged the mayor and board to restore previously allocated Dream Keeper Initiative funding, saying cuts have reduced capacity for Black‑serving organizations and programs.",{"_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},6598904,"Board affirms Planning Department’s categorical-exemption for 214–220 Second Street after public hearing; related motions tabled",1759,3744000,5503000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3&start=3744&end=5503","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3/thumbnail_3744000.jpg","/articles/6598904/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-affirms-Planning-Departments-categorical-exemption-for-214220-Second-Street-after-public-hearing-related-motions-tabled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598904-017ad3a0902c427d59cef164e08b55f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151333&Signature=oxoXATH2CA49c-srK7bydox0Ayf6EW-Hlf5TIZonhEEbjbEUxnuhvdXlUg79uNjGmj1sGeCZERTHswVyBT0bSbgdsUjM2naPcPr7OuNc0ee0WDpLCjfZBjmfpYWoGG1J~iFt3kPs1auF3ziPXNLlcodFVJHppc8Kk6bYQUpTWCZoHL7LaCsV7kMVPTSgEZVMKLcIXTTBAPuf7Oa6NwwFa0bYUgiN3EOqT0Yr008HdjfAzqLWD~rVJcnLXB50OBg-SL4eCZv6aV7lLIyGbDXfYXIYMx4ETgwGZERbnZSuHHC1GpEYb52EbRABEZPEhwhQC1KkFYsCluYYR6qm1leEfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","After a contested public hearing on April 15, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the Planning Department’s determination that the proposed demolition of an existing single‑family house at 214–220 Second Street and construction of a six‑story, five‑unit building qualifies for class 1 and class 3 categorical exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The board approved item 35 and tabled items 36 and 37, which would have reversed the exemption or directed written findings.

Why it matters: The decision keeps the project on a path that would allow it to proceed to building‑permit review without a separate environmental review document, while preserving future administrative and permitting safeguards through the city's building‑permit and geotechnical review processes.

Substantive points from the hearing: Appellant and experts: Emily Brough, representing appellants (02/1932 and 02/3620 Second Street HOA), said the site presents “unusual circumstances” under CEQA because of a steep slope (appellant cited up to a 40% grade in areas), designation on the state earthquake landslide zone maps, and underlying serpentine bedrock that can contain naturally occurring asbestos. Geotechnical engineer Allan Cropp testified he found the record lacking deep borings and certified geology reports for a planned excavation of up to 30 feet and said that serpentinite can present stability, shear‑zone, and asbestos risks that warrant deeper subsurface study before construction.

Planning Department response: Lisa Gibson, the department’s environmental review officer, and staff maintained the Planning Department’s determination that the project fits class 1 (demolition) and class 3 (six or fewer dwelling units) categorical exemptions and that the factors cited by the appellant are not “unusual circumstances” in San Francisco. Planning presented department estimates showing substantial portions of the city have slopes exceeding 25% and that serpentine bedrock is common in Potrero Hill and surrounding areas. Staff also noted that compliance with the state's and city’s building codes (including DBI and slope/seismic hazard requirements) would govern geotechnical review, asbestos/fugitive dust controls and worker/public protections during excavation and construction.

Project sponsor statement: Tuya Catalano, counsel for the project sponsor, said the sponsor had tried to engage the appellants to resolve concerns, noted a recorded notice regarding property‑line windows that has existed for 30 years, and emphasized that required geotechnical and geology reports are submitted during the building‑permit review (DBI) stage. Catalano argued that the appeal should not substitute for the building permit process and that mitigation and engineering controls are administered by DBI and public‑safety regulations.

Board action and procedure: The board opened the public hearing, heard the appellant and a geotechnical expert, received the Planning Department’s presentation, heard the project sponsor, and then heard final rebuttal from the appellant. Supervisor Walton moved the motion to affirm item 35 (the Planning Department’s categorical exemption); Supervisor Chan seconded. The clerk recorded the motion to approve item 35 and to table items 36 and 37; the vote on item 35 was recorded as 11 ayes.

What the board did not decide: Tabling items 36 and 37 leaves open the option for further written findings or reconsideration at a later date, but item 35’s affirmation allows the project sponsor to proceed to the normal building‑permit, geotechnical and dust control reviews required by DBI and other permitting authorities.

Ending: The board’s action affirms Planning’s categorical exemption finding for CEQA purposes at this stage, while DBI and other regulatory processes remain the venues for detailed geotechnical and excavation controls required before construction.","After a contested public hearing, the Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the Planning Department’s categorical exemption for a proposed six‑story, five‑unit project at 214–220 Second Street and tabled related motions directing findings and reversing that determination.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6598909,"Board approves slate of housing financing, contract amendments and planning ordinances",123,604000,727000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3&start=604&end=727","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3021958-c6d062dc0f3ea25b1efeb3ec577ca5c3/thumbnail_604000.jpg","/articles/6598909/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-approves-slate-of-housing-financing-contract-amendments-and-planning-ordinances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598909-648c1f0f66c2a8d0916d24bbbaa573da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151333&Signature=Xbsp2xBLEh4vbm2~u9RhzHywf1a~lupRGcY0gXS4awhpV~-NdxM1TXBxf8uEozgu2weFf-UdQ~WNVnlWtMlOBAN9ymOUoRYi0p56dqbTIgpyE98y19o~EN6gonZGqQd70vFwDrAMVbSlpwhqeEG32n-7gpuakNzo5eCnUrSmlHmzu40-9APsjShKkdtpSjvpJxQNFnUefbX7XmkPHYgy4aTmvWZmo8SeOHDczxYIhTzaJZjGYELgouGolKYQTmnvqJDlxiZffOJhbW0y89C89lJKH6v9ynpiBBLsbmC8iiy4WlSV8qewnetDl4BZB~ehTGnQj4RZvIxjIg8lqQO4uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 15 approved a broad set of routine and substantive items including housing revenue authorizations, contract amendments for public‑utilities work, Mission Rock land and right‑of‑way measures, and several homelessness grant and lease actions.

The board voted unanimously on multiple items taken on the consent calendar and on first reading where noted, approving funding authorizations for Sunnydale Hope SF blocks, amendments to professional services agreements at the Public Utilities Commission, and a retroactive lease for an emergency non‑congregate shelter at the Monarch Hotel. A separate roll call recorded the sheriff's military equipment annual report as adopted with eight ayes and three no votes.

Why it matters: the approvals move forward financing and permitting steps for multiple housing projects and extend or increase city contract authority for utilities and construction oversight. The Monarch Hotel lease provides immediate shelter capacity while bond and loan actions commit tens of millions for Sunnydale housing projects. The sheriff's office vote drew visible dissent, reflecting ongoing debate over public‑safety equipment and civil‑liberties oversight.

Key actions at a glance:
- PUC construction management amendment (Item 10): Board adopted a resolution authorizing the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute a first amendment increasing a construction management professional services agreement by $25,000,000 to a new total of $34,000,000 and extending the contract duration through 06/03/2030. Vote: recorded as 11 ayes.

- Monarch Hotel lease for non‑congregate shelter (Item 11): Board retroactively approved a lease with Lombard Hotel Group for the Monarch Hotel at 1015 Geary Street to operate a 102‑unit non‑congregate temporary shelter for 04/01/2025–03/31/2026, with annual base rent stated as $1,600,000 and an approximate final payment of $100,000 upon surrender. Adopted without objection.

- PUC operations & maintenance services amendment (Item 12): Board approved first amendments to multiple professional services contracts (Stantec, JHCE JV, MMD JV, AECOM, WRE JV, Lee Inc.) increasing each contract by $5,500,000 to new not‑to‑exceed amounts of $13,000,000, for a combined total cited as $52,000,000. Adopted without objection.

- Sunnydale financing and loans (Items 19–22): The board adopted resolutions to authorize multifamily housing revenue notes and bonds (one item cited at $53,300,000 and another at approximately $57,000,000) to finance Sunnydale Hope SF Block 7 (89 units) and Block 9 (95 units). The mayor's office of housing and community development was authorized to execute amended and restated loan agreements of $18,000,000 (Block 7) and $30,200,000 (Block 9). Adopted without objection.

- Grant amendments for homelessness services (Items 13–15, 17): The board approved multi‑year grant amendments to Abode Services (increase ~$8,500,000 to $18,400,000 total), Episcopal Community Services (increase ~$5,800,000 to $20,400,000 total), and 5 Keys Schools & Programs (increase ~$4,900,000 to $13,900,000 total). Item 17 (Mission Action, emergency shelter) approved an amendment increasing funding by ~$8,500,000 to $18,500,000 total. Adopted without objection.

- Mission Rock and related property actions (Items 9, 24–27): The board took actions on Mission Rock‑related easements, irrevocable offers of public infrastructure and encroachment permits; ordinances on those items were passed on first reading and resolutions were adopted as noted in the file.

- Planning code and zoning amendments (Item 7, Item 23): Ordinance to establish the 600 Townsend Street West Special Use District and a separate ordinance to expand criteria for certain self‑storage uses in PDR zoning passed (item 7 finally passed; item 23 passed on first reading). Adopted as the clerk recorded.

- Capital plan (Item 16): The board adopted the City and County 10‑year capital expenditure plan for fiscal years 2026–2035 per administrative code section 3.2. Adopted without objection.

- Appointments (Items 30–32): Motion to appoint Supervisor Matt Dorsey to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved; additional committee appointments for the Sugary Drinks Distributor Tax Advisory Committee and the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board were also approved.

- Sheriff’s Office military equipment policy annual report (Item 33): The board adopted the Sheriff's Office military equipment use policy annual report. Roll call recorded eight ayes and three no votes; Supervisors Chan, Fielder and Walton voted no. The clerk recorded: “There are 8 ayes and 3 nos with supervisors Chan, Fielder, and Walton voting no.”

Votes and process notes: many items were taken “same house, same call” (consent) and recorded as adopted without objection; other items were passed on first reading as the clerk noted. Where a recorded roll call was made, the clerk called supervisor votes individually for the minutes.

What’s next: the adopted financing and contract actions proceed to implementation steps in the mayor’s offices and executing departments (building‑permit reviews, PUC contract administration, bond closings and loan documents). For items passed on first reading, subsequent formal readings or administrative follow‑through remain part of the record.

Ending: The package of approvals advances several housing and shelter initiatives while also renewing city contracting authority for utility services; the recorded no votes on the sheriff’s equipment report underscore continuing oversight debate.","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 15 adopted a package of ordinances, resolutions and contract amendments covering housing finance, public‑utilities contracts, development approvals and other routine business; the board also approved a report on sheriff's office military equipment amid three recorded no votes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Mayor Lurie outlines public‑safety, housing and economic goals at 100‑day address to supervisors

Community speakers urge restoration of Dream Keeper Initiative funding at board meeting

Board affirms Planning Department’s categorical-exemption for 214–220 Second Street after public hearing; related motions tabled

Board approves slate of housing financing, contract amendments and planning ordinances