Danny Sauter

File 251211: Public Works, Administrative, Planning, Business and Tax Regulations Codes - Street Tree Standards, Appeals, and Adopt-A-Tree Fund

Source textWong Ordinance amending the Public Works Code to allow development projects to satisfy street tree planting requirements through payment of an in lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping; exempt accessory dwelling units from street tree planting requirements; eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals for hazardous tree removals undertaken by City departments and commissions; amending the Administrative Code to specify a separate account within the Adopt-A-Tree Fund to receive in lieu fees for street tree requirements; amending the Planning Code to update street tree applicability requirements; amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to prescribe timeframes for the hearing and decision on appeals of certain street tree removals to the Board of Appeals; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302. (Supervisors Chan, Fielder, Sauter, and Walton voted No on First Reading.) FINALLY PASSED by the following vote:

File 251211: Public Works, Administrative, Planning, Business and Tax Regulations Codes - Street Tree Standards, Appeals, and Adopt-A-Tree Fund

Source textcts to satisfy street tree planting requirements through payment of an in lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping; exempt accessory dwelling units from street tree planting requirements; eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals for hazardous tree removals undertaken by City departments and commissions; amending the Administrative Code to specify a separate account within the Adopt-A-Tree Fund to receive in lieu fees for street tree requirements; amending the Planning Code to update street tree applicability requirements; amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to prescribe timeframes for the hearing and decision on appeals of certain street tree removals to the Board of Appeals; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302. Privilege of the floor was granted unanimously to David Moore (Public Works) who responded to questions raised throughout the discussion. PASSED ON FIRST READING by the following vote:

File 251003: Administrative Code - Expanding Drug-Free Permanent Supportive Housing

Source texteet the demand of people experiencing homelessness who prefer such a residential option; require that City funding for new Site-Based PSH for people experiencing homelessness be used for Drug-Free PSH except where operation of the housing as Drug-Free PSH would conflict with standards imposed by law or by a condition of other funding, where the funding is for new construction, or the Board of Supervisors has waived the funding requirement based on specific findings; require the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (“HSH”) to survey residents of Site-Based PSH to assess their interest in living in either Drug-Tolerant PSH or Drug-Free PSH and report on the survey findings and HSH’s strategies to meet PSH residents’ demands; and require HSH to adopt rules and regulations establishing standards and protocols for evictions from City-funded Drug-Free Housing. (Racial Equity Impact) Supervisor Fielder, seconded by Supervisor Melgar, moved that this Ordinance be AMENDED on Page 4, Lines 18-19, by striking ‘or shelter’; on Page 8, Line 12, by adding ‘comparable’, Lines 12-13, by striking ‘or shelter’, and Line 19, by striking ‘shelter’. The motion FAILED by the following vote:

File 260538: Planning, Administrative, Building Codes - Inclusionary Housing Program Updates and Reductions; Development Impact Fee Reductions

Source text-23, by adding ‘(4) In the Mission Area Plan (See San Francisco General Plan, Eastern Neighborhoods Planning Areas, Map 1) for any Rental Housing Project, the number of Affordable Units constructed on-site shall be 8% of all units constructed on the project site. A minimum of 6% of the units shall be affordable to low-income households, and 2% of the units shall be affordable to moderate income households. Rental Units for low-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 55% of Area Median Income or less, with households earning up to 65% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for low-income units. Rental Units for moderate-income households shall have an affordable rent set at 80% of Area Median Income or less, with households earning up to 90% of Area Median Income eligible to apply for moderate-income units. MOHCD may reduce Area Median Income pricing and the minimum income required for eligibility in each rental category, and may apply the income eligibility ranges set forth in this subsection(a)(4) to previously approved Rental Units located in the Mission Area Plan area.’; and making other clarifying and conforming changes. The motion carried by the following vote:

File 250701: Planning, Business and Tax Regulations Codes - Family Zoning Plan

LLM summaryAn ordinance related to the Family Zoning Plan was passed on first reading.

Source textn Francisco Program and other associated changes in the City’s Coastal Zone, and directing the Planning Director to transmit the Ordinance to the Coastal Commission upon enactment; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302. (Economic Impact) (Supervisors Chan, Chen, Fielder, and Walton voted No on First Reading.) Privilege of the floor was granted unanimously to Lisa Chen (Planning Department) who responded to questions raised throughout the discussion. Supervisor Chan, seconded by Supervisor Walton, moved that this Ordinance be AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE, on Page 13, Line 10, by striking ‘more than two’ so that it reads ‘(9) is not located on a site containing residential units where the project would require the demolition of residential uses that are subject to the rent increase limitations set forth in Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code; and’. The motion failed by the following vote:

File 250808: Planning Code; Administrative Code - Legacy Businesses in Neighborhood Commercial Districts

LLM summaryA proposed amendment to the Planning Code regarding legacy businesses in neighborhood commercial districts was not passed on the first reading.

Source textNOT PASSED ON FIRST READING AS AMENDED by the following vote:

File 250682: Planning Code; Zoning Map - Consolidating the North Beach Special Use and Neighborhood Commercial Districts and Expanding Allowable Uses and Use Size Limits in Certain Zoning Districts

LLM summaryA motion to divide and re-refer an ordinance regarding zoning districts back to committee failed, and the ordinance passed on the first reading.

Source text responded to questions raised throughout the discussion. Supervisor Chan requested that the question be DIVIDED to consider the references to the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the North Beach Special Use District, and Jackson Square Special Use District separately. Supervisor Chan, seconded by Supervisor Walton, moved that the Divided Question be RE-REFERRED back to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Deputy City Attorney Russi reported that, due to the complexity of the request to Divide, the determination on whether both the Divided Question and remaining balance could each stand alone and be considered separately, as required by Board Rule 5.30, could not be made today and a continuance would be in order. Before the vote was taken, Supervisor Chan rescinded her request to DIVIDE the question and her motion to re-refer the divided question back to committee. Supervisor Walton rescinded his second. Supervisor Chan requested this Ordinance be DUPLICATED ON FIRST READING. Supervisor Chan, seconded by Supervisor Walton, moved that the Duplicated Ordinance be RE-REFERRED back to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The motion failed by the following vote:

File 250634: Planning Code - Use Size Limits

LLM summaryAn ordinance to eliminate limits on non-residential use sizes in certain districts was continued on first reading.

Source texte - Use Size Limits] Sponsors: Melgar; Sherrill, Sauter and Dorsey Ordinance amending the Planning Code to eliminate limits on Non-Residential Use Sizes in the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD), Polk Street NCD, West Portal Avenue NCD, North Beach NCD and North Beach Special Use District, Regional Commercial Districts, and Residential-Commercial District; allow specified Non-Residential Uses that exceed the Use Size limits to divide into smaller spaces that may continue to exceed the Use Size limits, without conditional use authorization; adjust the Use Size limit in all NCDs to a round number; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1; and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning Code, Section 302. (Supervisors Chan and Chen voted No on First Reading.) Supervisor Dorsey requested to be added as a co-sponsor. Supervisor Chan, seconded by Supervisor Chen, moved that this Ordinance be CONTINUED ON FIRST READING. The motion FAILED by the following vote:

File 250727: Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 79 (Wiener) Unless Amended - Housing Development: Transit-Oriented Development

LLM summaryA resolution opposing California State Senate Bill No. 79 was not adopted, citing concerns over local government planning authority.

Source text250727 [Opposing California State Senate Bill No. 79 (Wiener) Unless Amended - Housing Development: Transit-Oriented Development] Sponsors: Chan; Chen, Fielder and Walton Resolution opposing California State Senate Bill No. 79, Housing Development: Transit-Oriented Development, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, and similar future legislation, unless amended to give Local governments adequate ability to formulate local plans through its local legislative process, in which local governments and residents have adequate review and oversight of community planning, including affordability requirements, and residential and commercial tenant protections. NOT ADOPTED by the following vote:

File 250192: Administrative, Labor and Employment Codes - City Contract Processes and Requirements

LLM summaryAn ordinance was re-referred as amended to the Budget and Finance Committee regarding City contract processes and requirements.

Source textSupervisor Walton, seconded by Supervisor Melgar, moved that this Ordinance be RE-REFERRED AS AMENDED to the Budget and Finance Committee. The motion carried by the following vote: