Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves TEFRA resolution for 1601 Mariposa despite supervisor concerns about premature signal to community
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8–3 to adopt a TEFRA resolution allowing bond financing for a proposed 316-unit project at 1601 Mariposa Street, even as Supervisor Cohen and others warned the action could be perceived as prejudging a project that remains under CEQA review.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8–3 on Feb. 24 to adopt a resolution declaring the city’s intent to reimburse certain expenditures and to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $200,000,000 for the proposed housing project at 1601 Mariposa Street.
Supervisor David Campos introduced the item as part of the mayor’s office financing process; the measure would allow the project sponsor to seek bond financing through the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The financing route would, if used, trigger a requirement that 20 percent of the project’s units be affordable on-site — higher than the underlying zoning’s 14.4 percent, Sophie Hayward of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development told the board.
Supervisor Cohen explained she would vote no. "I will be voting no on this item," she said, arguing the board’s TEFRA action came before environmental (CEQA) review and detailed entitlements. Cohen said the item risked communicating that the board was "prejudging" the project and could send the wrong message to neighborhoods engaged in ongoing review; she also noted the resolution does not legally obligate the sponsor to deliver the 20 percent on-site affordable units they have publicly pledged. Deputy City Attorney John Gibner told the board the resolution was a financing action that does not itself require CEQA review and that subsequent approvals tied to project entitlements would return to the board after CEQA was complete.
Supporters including Supervisors Mar, Tang and Kim emphasized that the TEFRA resolution relates to financing timing and that CDLAC rules provide a 60‑day window after site acquisition in which a TEFRA resolution is typically requested. Kim said that when bond financing is used, "we will get 20% of the units affordable on-site." Supervisor Wiener and others urged that internal processes be adjusted so the Mayor’s Office of Housing notifies supervisors earlier in the acquisition/TEFRA window to avoid surprises.
The roll call recorded Supervisor Cohen, Supervisor Breed and Supervisor Campos as the three dissenting votes; the measure passed 8–3.
Why it matters: The resolution does not approve the project, but it authorizes the city to support a financing route that could make more on-site affordable units available if the sponsor chooses to use bond financing. Opponents warned about the appearance of board endorsement before CEQA and entitlement decisions are final; proponents stressed the narrow financing purpose and the practical timing constraints imposed by CDLAC rules.
Votes at passage: 8 yes, 3 no. The measure will allow the project to apply for CDLAC allocation; any future entitlement and environmental decisions will return to the board for further action.
