Board approves downtown adaptive-reuse fee exemptions, library Mellon grant, bus purchases and multiple grants; supervisors stress housing and transit goals

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a range of measures on March 4, 2025, including an amendment to the planning code to exempt some downtown commercial‑to‑residential adaptive reuse projects from development impact fees, authorization for the public library to accept a roughly $1.9 million Mellon Foundation grant for jail and reentry services and addition of three grant‑funded positions, and multiple grants, contracts and procurement items tied to transit, housing and park improvements.

The board discussed several items in public comment and during introductions of new business, then moved many items under "same house, same call" or on consent. Most measures were adopted without recorded objection. Item 17, a planning‑code ordinance on downtown adaptive reuse, passed with a recorded vote of nine ayes and one no. Several financial and procurement resolutions were adopted to authorize grants, contract amendments, and capital purchases for city departments.

Why it matters: The planning‑code change aims to accelerate conversion of underutilized nonresidential downtown space to housing by exempting certain projects from development impact fees and by adjusting program timing and reporting requirements. The public‑library grant expands reentry support services and adds three grant‑funded staff positions. Several transit and public‑works items — including an amendment to a contract for water‑treatment plant engineering services and purchase agreements for battery‑electric buses — affect capital spending and service planning in coming years.

Votes at a glance

- Item 17 — Ordinance to amend the planning code (downtown commercial‑to‑residential adaptive reuse exemption): Ordinance finally passed; roll call recorded 9 ayes, 1 no (Supervisor Walton voted no).

- Item 18 — Ordinance authorizing the Department of Public Library to accept and expend an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant (~$1,900,000) and to add three grant‑funded positions: Passed on first reading; clerk recorded 10 ayes.

- Items 19 & 20 — Resolutions authorizing Recreation and Park Department grant agreements (Embarcadero Plaza / Sue Bierman Park improvements; Great Highway Promenade planning): Adopted without recorded objection (item 19 includes potential in‑kind and cash grants totaling approximately $2.5 million plus potential additional grants up to $10 million; item 20 is a $1,000,000 Coastal Conservancy grant).

- Item 21 — SFPUC resolution to amend a contract with CDM Smith Inc. for Sonole Valley Water Treatment Plant ozonation: Approved; the contract amount will increase by $9,600,000 to a total of $24,600,000 and the term was extended through February 2030.

- Item 22 — Resolution to accept a $675,000 James Irvine Foundation grant for the Northern California Apprenticeship Network sustainability: Adopted without recorded objection.

- Item 23 — MOHCD resolution to execute loan documents for permanent financing of 1135–1155 and 1175 Ellis Street, $50,600,000 loan: Adopted without recorded objection; CEQA determination affirmed.

- Item 24 — HSH resolution to accept Project Homekey grant funds (~$8,200,000) for acquisition at 42 Otis Street and commit matching funds (~$8,700,000): Adopted without recorded objection; CEQA determination affirmed.

- Item 25 — Procurement agreement with New Flyer of America Inc. to buy four 40‑foot and three 60‑foot battery electric buses and associated equipment (~$13,400,000): Adopted without recorded objection.

- Item 26 — (Also discussed separately) Amendment to Brilliant Corners grant agreement to increase funding by approximately $19,300,000: Adopted after committee discussion (see separate article).

- Item 27 — Resolution affirming commitment to birthright citizenship and opposing a presidential executive order on the topic: Adopted without recorded objection.

- Items 28–36 — Various resolutions and ordinances (including fundraising policy for advocacy causes, SFMTA joint‑development support, campaign and governmental conduct code updates, tax refund authority changes, and business/tax code changes regarding parking operator reporting): Adopted on first reading or resolution as presented; where roll‑call was recorded the clerk announced ayes as entered in the record. Item 28 recorded 9 ayes and 1 no (Supervisor Chan voted no) when the vote was re‑taken.

- Items 33–34 — Appointment motions (citizens committee reappointments): Approved without recorded objection.

- Items 37–40 — Resolutions introduced for adoption without committee reference, including reaffirmation of Administrative Code Chapter 14B (Local Business Enterprise program): Adopted with a recorded roll call of 11 ayes for items 38–40; item 37 was severed briefly and then taken and adopted without recorded objection.

Statements and context

Supervisor Melgar, speaking in support of Item 29, described the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's $321 million structural deficit and said the SFMTA joint‑development policy could unlock new revenue streams by developing underutilized agency real estate for housing and commercial uses. "The joint development program goals and policy unlocks new income streams possibly for the agency in the future by developing the real estate assets the agency owns for revenue generating uses," Melgar said.

Supervisor Walton introduced a resolution reaffirming the city's Local Business Enterprise program (Chapter 14B) and praised the participation of LBEs and labor partners. Other supervisors used openings in new business to introduce ordinances on topics from entertainment zones to data‑subscription procurement reforms and to call for hearings on contracting at HSH and on wastewater drug‑testing resources.

Ending

Most items were adopted under consent or "same house, same call." Where supervisors raised policy concerns — notably on FHSP contracting and on the SFMTA's fiscal outlook — members said they expected follow‑up hearings, procurement standardization, and reporting back to the board. Several measures included explicit direction to city departments to return with implementation details or to confirm CEQA findings.