Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE BOS Land Use Committee 20170410

Good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation of San Francisco board of supervisors for today monday, april 10, 2017, im the chair the committee acting it chair supervisor peskin joined by supervisor tang and sit for mark farrell supervisor jeff sheehy our clerk alicia that has bronchitis and want to thank thes at sfgovtv for Live Streaming this madam clerk would you or john read number one, please oh, are there any announcements. Please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. Items acted upon today will appear on the april 18th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated and why not get a housekeeping motion to excuse supervisor farrell motion by supervisor tang and without objection and madam clerk can you please read the first number one, an ordinance item no. 1 planning code Affordable Housing requirement and fee in divisadero and fillmore neighborhood commercial higher Residential Development potential as a result of the zoning of divisadero street neighborhood commercial Transit District and the fillmore street neighborhood commercial Transit District in 2015 and making appropriate understanding autopsy thank you. I have been informed by supervisor president london breed that she would like this matter continued and representing her office is mr. Michael sir any words. No good afternoon, supervisors we would like to ask this item to be continued to may 1st if possible. A continuance to the first day of may 2017 a couple of three weeks from today anyone from the public wish to comment to item number one, that is to be continued momentarily please come up if you have any comments and give each speaker two minutes madam clerk. First. Next speaker, please. Supervisors my name is dennis im a newly lifetime resident of d 5 and a native san franciscan and find the current i support the continuance because i find it unacceptable we need more Affordable Housing and this measure primarily supports more marketrate housing at a tiny for low income working people thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi jennifer with the San Francisco Tenants Union 0 we learned look the area medium income in the western edition is 54 percent so this proposal that supervisor president london breed for the building didnt reflective the reality of the situation on the 0 ground and as pointed out we shouldnt be doing policy based on antidotes about our friends but real data the San Francisco did a survey of people evicted and 69 percent earn under 50 thousand a year a need more Affordable Housing and we support this continuance because we oppose this developed until the low Income Housing is as high as it can possibly go. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors Gus Hernandez chair of the Steering Committee for affordable units we found out this hearing was continued as you can see we brought a lot of folks in the neighborhood worship here to to help to improve the legislation that supervisor president london breed has put forward instead of a last time and shows her approach to the excluding the community were asking support the continuance we believe the additional time will allow for more improvements we you couldnt request during the continuance between now and when the matter is heard again that supervisor president london breed and the Planning Department engage with the community and hold a forum for the issues to be discussed why has she not met with us we wanted more Affordable Housing not less and the proposed at the lagging last hearing is not enough we hope to be here in may to support the legislation that complies with the demands of the community and offers truly Affordable Housing not for high income people over the 3450e78d or for people who actually need Affordable Housing thank you thank you, mr. Hernandez and youre all welcome to testify to the members of this panel on may 1st and supervisor president london breed staff is here so youre absolutely welcome to comment and i believe that mr. Hernandez that supervisor president london breed does intend to meet with the community in the days and weeks ahead hopefully to come up with a collaborative compromise. Next speaker, please. My name is and work with the eviction collaborative and im here also in hope that well be back in may to take part in the legislation that complies with the demand of our community and offers truly Affordable Housing. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Thank you having this hearing im don ive lived in north of page offer 15 years i work at im retired but volunteer at at safe Energy Clinic and dye breed that was able to do fulltime or at least half time organizing while working part time in retail addressing Energy Issues with the San Francisco power including stopping the uss mississippi and going down in south and many other campaigns to the south west, etc. I fear that the way rents are going im able to do that partly because of rentcontrolled but if i lose that placed San Francisco will be his for me it is made history to a lot of us already i strongly support the move to continue this legislation to give it better consideration to give much more public input than allowed up to now and thank you all for your deliberation on this and try to make me not a extinct residents in San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im jena member of the neighbors unit a district g Progressive Club and i support the continuance we hope had long line of people shows how much the community absolutely is no longer standing for folks rolling out unAffordable Housing legislation spending more it is frustrating and happy that commissioner london breed will speak to the community weve been asking for a long time im happy that well get the chance to talk about where we need in the community and thank you very much for the continuance. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello chair peskin im a district 56 resident moved here in 1999 a local policy advocate as someone that lived here over a time period the city has changed the idea that we are talking about nothing less the citywide requirement more Affordable Housing for my neighborhood is completely insane the situation is way, way worse than the citywide requirement was instituted and pulling back instead of moving forward will be as insane as cutting back on Climate Action at a time things are a new level of bad if we think that our action at the federal level is counterproductive the same thing it true in the housing policy in San Francisco we need more Affordable Housing than we have by such a magnitude whatever policies instituted will not be enough so we need to be aggressive and be here kabul for more Affordable Housing unless the policies with the city and county of San Francisco results in all of us forced out of the city that is one unhappy way away for many of us not a Sustainable Way to run a town thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is richard a resident of district 5 and the i took the day off of work to be here i support the continuance i refute the package for this item seeing this the Planning Department and commission supported it being aligned with prop c in 2016 prop c which provided 15 percent for low and very low income and also referred the nexus study in november of 2016 and that showed the impact of one hundred units would be 37. 6 condos or 31. 8 apartment for 120 ami i believe the legislation should be amended to provide more Affordable Housing for low and very low income households thank you thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is laurie live in the inner sunset a member of united action he support the continuance and like to see continued even longer and until after the prop c inclusionary ratios are settled the conversion of those two district to ncts have a Density Bonus Program for 9 blocks of fillmore and 12 of divisadero the affordable inclusionary requirement must be greater than than prop c over and above the prop c ratio it must not be a divide and conquer that pits households against each other and adversely impacts the low income households needs to be put on hold pending the inclusionary ratios and add to that each of the levels thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Im denise and lived and worked or lived in the area four thirty years as a retired person im concerned about Affordable Housing since i rent but im more concerned for on the people and families difficult times living here in the city people have been here a like it or not that be are uprooted i support the continuance and want to see more Affordable Housing worked out so the low and very low income people can find housing it makes for a much better city thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors im tony robles, housing organizer with the senior disability action collaborative. Just want to come out in support of the continuance i know there are ongoing decisions in discourse about the citywide requirement you know the Community Wants to accept the proposal for fillmore and divisadero in addition to the citywide plan more Affordable Housing for people that need it household making under the area medium income namely household and individuals that are with the district are be disability action and i know pitting against one group against another is you know not healthy for the situation were in. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is javior at Leadership High School im representing my fellow students to show support for the continuance as supervisor president london breed the opportunity to get connected and talk with the constituents as a member of variances community ill motivate supervisor president london breed to reach out as to the millennials who are unable to get Affordable Housing tonight no matter how much not enough to create together with said community and build at her community that represents their needs supervisors are meant to supervisor and represent the constituents and london breed was elected no i urge london breed to reach out and build doubling Affordable Housing thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is spencer im a writer artist and enterprise taking time off of work to be here to strongly support this legislation i think our hearts should be with the members of the society all the time and clearly people that need housing and a scarce supply in San Francisco we should, supporting the not the water it and kicking to the curving the poorest. Thank you afternoon my name is connor ryan a resident of San Francisco for 419 years and lived in the north panhandle for 13 and support the continuance for the legislation because as it stands it is flawed if were going to retain nothing like a difference San Francisco we must have Affordable Housing for all but if were going to renegotiate and start changing the rules of the game we shouldnt be negotiating on the backs of the most vulnerable and the low income people of this city so i support the continuance and support further study on this very flawed legislation thank you for your time. Thank you. Hello my name is david wu ichts born and raised in district 5 and still live in the district im here to support this continuance we need to redo the legislation as it currently exist it seeks to cut Affordable Housing we need to be fighting to canned to the highest level possible im glad to hear that supervisor president london breed is intending to meet with the community on this legislation as she has been largely absent and not engaged her own constituents so im looking forward to hearing if supervisor breed and the Planning Department in a public forum format thank you. Thank you, mr. Wu. Next speaker. Good afternoon. Im speaking individually for a mid townhouse parks apartments im a resident here since 1970 into the district i was raised there and also im part of safe midtown im in support of continuance but also to this legislation is fade and daishgd and plus overall the city of San Francisco needs to stop the board of supervisors the rich and powerful getting theyre way and not the low income thank you for the opportunity and have a good week thank you. Thank you. Supervisors thank you. Im mark a 19 year resident of district 8 supervisor jeff sheehy so good to meet ive come to talk to im a hiring manager for a nonprofit 10 years and im trying to hire entrylevel workers and those people need a place to live unfortunately, it is not very viable for them so like my friend said earlier any legislation that we can do together is probably not enough to what we need we need to turn it up to 11 and we need your help on doing that because we want to grow the economy in San Francisco and that is to Energy Workers i came in 1997 and started at the bottom in a tax person and now a hiring manager im contributing to the economy we need more people to create overseeing opportunity cant just be those how folks i appreciate this and look forward to seeing you next time thank you all. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon excuse me good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity noipdz a period of time im a decadeslong resident of district 5 i support the continuance because i believe that the supervisor president london breed needs to take the time to reflect about the broad legislation myself im a middleincome mid age man in meddle managed i see my Community Changing not only the workingclass but paperpushers, too, and divisadero is corridor is quite diverse and a lot of minority be owned businesses and i see that sdraurgsz and a critical time for the board to look at the reality many, many of the san franciscans have been living here for the last decade this city is expensive but to cartoonville i didnt expensive i hear what will happen not only the middle aged myself but people with children thank you for the opportunity. Thank you good afternoon supervisors. Thank you for the time to speak im interfering our live in the excelsior district 11 lived there too years but before that over a decade on las vegas worst in an sro a graduate from usf and recently got married and want to make San Francisco my home were and my colleagues here to demand Affordable Housing other than the proposal that supervisor president london breed has put forwarded we demand that those requirements are affordable to the people that live here families and the people that want to live here not affordable to developers we support this continuance and we urge that supervisors and london breed take the time along with the Planning Commission to reach out to the community to see what the needs of people actually are and any requirement we demand that is in addition to the citywide requirement not a proposal that takes away from the low income constituents and citizens of this city and gives it away to hire wage earns we want Affordable Housing more Affordable Housing not less thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Good afternoon my name is alison im a parent in the fillmore i support this continuance and i hope that commissioner london breed will in fact, meet with the community during this period to uphold her promise shell increase the highest level of Affordable Housing in the city not the insulting low level of unit thank you. Hi, im renee a resident of district 5 for 20 years and support the continuance and hope that land use and Transportation Committee along with clooepd e london breed will create a legislation that works for San Francisco we dont have a housing crisis we have a crisis of affordability not follow world hunger by opening up businesses and restaurant not solve the Housing Affordability crisis with a bunch of luxury housing thanks. Thank you good afternoon, supervisors my name is laparoroan a senior will in the fillmore for years i would right across the street if the proposal at 650 direct examination i support the continuation very much we need to have the larger discussion about the inclusionary incentives the Corridors Program should match the inclusionary percentages and in fact, be higher because more density is also for the developers in addition, i sense that the i sent the supervisor an email over the weekend proposing Solutions Regarding the ami the discussion of neighborhoods ami i think that is a way out to have have your cake and eat it too hope you give that consideration. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors my name is lisa im a resident of panhandle and have been for neither here nor there 3 decades im frustrate by todays continuance i took time off of work ill say i support the continuance if it means we can try to improve supervisor breed legislation and i just, you know, i think there is a solution here and we need your help as members of land use and transportation and as supervisors we need our very own supervisors help because there is truly a crisis of affordability for people making one hundred or 50 thousand a year not enough housing youve heard people see is that over and over what if we came together and came up with a plan and compromised that would be something not sitting through listens and listens of people commenting and warrior and fretting thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, please move to continue the legislation and we hope we can meet with our supervisor she ran on the the promise of Affordable Housing and many elected her believing that and that remains to be seen thank you. clapping. thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is deirdre i live in the neighborhood and been here thirty years i support the continuance for more dialogue and hopefully, a good compromise for a winwin situation for both sides i like the idea of Affordable Housing especially for people that work in San Francisco like our Police People can our fire people and especially our educators that p they need a place to live and work in San Francisco thank you. Thank you, maam. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors testing from the penalty residents i support having for discussion with commissioner london breed and the community probably involving planning id like to point out that the last time that we requested a Community Meeting with our supervisor about this project and other projects somehow we didnt get the notice about the meeting so im respectfully asking the chief of staff to make sure to conclude all the people in noticing thank you. clapping. good afternoon, supervisors corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. Looking at the traditional numbers we know the middleincome has been we appreciate supervisor president london breeds attempt to try to create housing for the firefighters and teachers and the emt and folks like that we fear the uncertainty and kraelgs by moving the gold post will have less Affordable Housing that is the goal of everybody in the chamber we support the tupgz and hope we have a final resolve that has everybody coming out with a thumbsup. It is pressing good afternoon, supervisors and first of all, lets put to rest this kind of legislation by proposing to house people are 140 ami will house teachers a reason the Teachers Union didnt allow that kind of argument that continuance i support it that will give london breed and the city an opportunity to turn offer a new leaf when it comes to develop this means actually advocating so for the community as opposed to to advocating for the interests of developers that is what weve seen for the last two years from london breed on this issue since the original give away this legislation seeks to address what that means during the time before the next hearing i hope is actual communication i feel for the folks that took time off from work they knew they would introduce send an email to gus that is basic requirement to engage in respect dialogue i want to echo the sentiment we need a public hearing to get Community Input on this lets Work Together to insure we have had more Affordable Housing on divisadero and fillmore not less thank you very much. clapping. seeing no other members of the Public Public comment is closed. And thank you all for your testimony and i hope that by may first, well fourthed something not more hard working to do is there a motion to continue to may 1st. So moved. Made by supervisor tang and supervisor jeff sheehy without objection that will be heard on may 1st madam clerk please read item no. 2 item no. 2 170202 Green Building code requirements for installation of electric vehicle chargers. In New Buildings or those under 0 going major alterations. Supervisor tang. Thank you very much and thank you for your patience to all the staff that working hard on this readiness ordinance existed to talk about how we are trying to really led the charger and you push the envelope for electrical vehicle adoption what were seeing is demand is growing in the bay area around electrical vehicles and what we need to do is so get our Infrastructure Ready to set great example for the region and the rest of country lastly about before i im going to turn it over to the department of the environment debbie want to thank everyone that worked hard on the issue and, of course, deb reaping and others from the Mayors Office calling names so San Francisco, california hopefully one day people like me can go ahead and drive an electrical vehicle here in San Francisco so with that, im going to turn it over to director ralph yes, maam e he will 101 for the major amendments and after that have to continue to the following land use and Transportation Committee hearing. Thank you supervisor tang thank you to the land use and Transportation Committee for hearing us today, i want to start by pressing my gratitude to mayor ed lee and supervisor tang for your leadership and Partnership Working for what i consider to be a bold move but a move that reflects great stakeholders engagement, 234rek9 and meaningfulness when it comes to the future of electrical vehicles here in San Francisco so what im going to do a little tag team with gary hooper well set the context why we need to do that now and who is at table and United States of america u im going to turn it over to barry that will talk about was that the ordinance structure does and the amendments to make adjustment to that framework in that ordinance so as you can see San Francisco has very bold Carbon Dioxide goals in fact, weve pledged as a city and the supervisors signed off to reduce our co2 emissions 80 percent 0 below 1990 by 2050 the point to get where we are to percent below our 1990 levels need to set up policies today that pave the way for that achievement in the future so the way we talk about how well get there is with the very simple Climate Action zero water 50 50 percent of trips in constitutional modes theyre our transit first get people out of cars walking and biking to streets and make that easy for people to ride transit parking minimums all the things we had to get to 50 and beyond one hundred a 100 percent renewal electrical for one hundred renewable and looking all the other source of energy ill come back to that in a minute and roots how well heal the planet by tearing up concrete by our sidewalk Ambassadors Program that supervisor tang is to active on is also using our composite on land to actually increase oil fertility and skewer carbon that is one element has to do with are Transportation Fuel so if in 100 Percent Renewable Energy well have to get off the fuel have to switch in natural from diesel to gallon that is about how to get off of gasoline vehicles and electrify the Transportation System so california why now california as supervisor tang said leads the nation were a state that totally gets the need to buy electrical vehicles and San Francisco bay area lead california we have a resimply audience in the San Francisco bay area our governor is very gun hoe on electrical vehicles and set very Ambitious Goals for the state i too said these that to meet the statewide well have to get off of gasoline and diesel so have many vehicles on the roads electrical vehicles theyre looking ways to do it is interesting to be mandated that 22 percent of all new sales of vessels in San Francisco by 205022 percent will be electric the state is setting goals and happen at the local levels what will we do in San Francisco to be ready for the vengeanvessels supervisor tang that figures out out how to drive an electrical vehicle we need convenient charging with the costs of electrical vehicles down we need a birth range of the electrical vehicles and the variety of choices not everybody wants a tiny such an some people want a Station Wagon or a truck we need choices those are the barriers this is my favorite slide it is one thing i didnt but i want to show you weve been hearing if or from people concerned how do you know the demand is there youre asking us how do we know there as demand for the electrical vehicles well, that is a slide i saw in a presentation in norway that talked about the norwegian experience in the uptick of vehicles it is for many years it was flat until about nodding when the curve up took sdraufk so what happened been 19090 and 2010 all the things in San Francisco, california were doing it you stop there they work all the policies we put in place infrastructure incentives and hov lanes maybe not enough what happens in norway about to happen here next year that is at Car Companies kicked in started to give the customers a wide variety of electrical vehicles so weve been preps in california this legislation will make sure that the buildings that are built in the future are ev ready when the Car Companies come we know about well be ready to take advantage and meet those bold goals we have as a city and as a state and frankly, were not alone not something that crazy San Francisco is coming up with we have cities crossed the bay area they do it defendant their Housing Stock is different were sharing information and workouting to come up to meet the needs so weve been working for a year and a half this is the variety of people that come to the there is a motion on the table weve been working with Affordable Housing and residential builder and largescale developers and contributions and the i e w to the gratitude of the department of building inspection this will be implement and able to understand that and make that work and make that feasible weve that working closely with tom hui and ron and all of them come to the table with us to bring to you a piece of policy that is meaningful that is measured that is Cost Effective and that will set us up for the future we want and finally i want to say that two commissioned have voted on that the Building Inspection Commission and the commission on the environment support it unanimously you have those resolutions in usual packet were proud of their support an indication how much effort into this piece of legislation so with that, im going to turn it over to my colleague barry who will go through how this works and what the amendments mean today and happy to answer questions. Ms. Raphael with the wide range of stakeholder and effected parties you k34ug9 with did that include the San Francisco Apartment Association. They expressed concerns or less your intention to answer the concerns their concerns will be addressed ordinance and baraka speak about the specification of their concerns so youll, recommending to the sponsor of this legislation some. I think we can work through the concerns and see if the amendments are needed im not sure well need to change the ordinance to address their concerns. Okay. I look forward to hearing more. Great. Good afternoon members of the board show i precede. Go ahead, please. So the ordinance as proposed as supervisor tang outlined was focused on flexibility and being both programmatic about the up front costs at the new construction as well as planning for the future so the core of that is a requirement that Electrical Service. Sir identify yourself for the record. Im barry with the department of the environment. So the core of the ordinance the Service Needs to be sized to provide for seamans charging at 20 percent of Parking Spaces with that level of service be able to expand the parking using charging management stmgz systems in the future to up and including all Parking Spaces in the facility sthep within the building electrical Distribution System the ordinance requires 10 percent of spaces your understanding as easy as possible to a charger and find a fuel credibility of 40 ams from the relevant Electrical Panel to the individual that Parking Spaces the ordinance proposed for an additional 10 percent of spaces more a conduit to up size the circuits as desired and again, provision for remaining space for capable of charging and a summary outlining it in more details in this slide a recommended amendment to the ordinance but there are summarized in the slide with the striking. At the risk of wasting more paper do you have a copy because those screens are ancient are completely we cant see them. I dont have a copy. The first slide that deb was showing from norway im sure everybody in the audience and watching that on tv can see it but the 3 of us that makes the decision cant. I salute you for ahsha safai paper. I have a laptop i could loan that. You dont want to give me our laptop. Well continue this item anyway well visit this again but wander we cant use our screens. Thank you. I apologize for that. The the biggest substantive change striking the flexibility requirement for the 10 percent of spaces to eliminate the requirement for any conduit or full credibility for the spaces and then for all remaining spaces rather than rather than an Electrical Design for each parking space the ordinance will require a programmaticly installing the conduits 3 could extend the worry and adds spaces for an Electrical Panel for the charges and charging that and the other change suggested categories that are suggested to the ordinance is addressing a provision to the environment code that requires the owner or the Homeowners Association in the building to annually notify the tenants of the availability of electrical vehicle chargers theyll have the opportunity to come to terms on installing an a. D. Charger if they deserve with the consideration and up front for all stakeholders it has been cost we partnered with the city of oakland and fremont to develop this proposal and have a consultant shared between the 3 cities proud the Cost Effective reports looking at the sensitive category of Smaller Development prairie Affordable Housing and the range of additional Parking Spaces of such facilities two scenarios one with 10 Parking Spaces and another one with 60 if you were to require that 20 percent of spaces were turnkey then or 10 spaces that will be two turn could he an 800 incredible costs you scale up to 60 Parking Spaces that is 12 turnkey spaces again, this is incremental costs of 10 for Parking Spaces one and 75 what was a number of stakeholders were careful to point out in newer and larger buildings that have a greater amount of parking a typical of housing we rarely see them in town you have a considerably more opportunity for electrical extra for transforms on the customer side of the electrical meters the run of conduit extends from the interest would individual Parking Spaces increases and, of course, it is going to be professional union labor to build this large property and there is a consideration there so overall cost is large for those facilities we apologize there are a number of provision for the control of costs directly address the concerns that were raised by a number of stakeholders including the apartment of association and really fall into two category one for new construction where the design of the building and the provision of electrical extra in the building youll provide electrical infrastructure in a building but one element that can be unpretty bad e predictable in the costs the cost of upgrading the portion of grid specific for your service is something the developer can bear the cost of it but the if the utility has to make upgrades it is not related to project size so consistent with the Green Building code that will maintain a cap of 400 per parking space so at the same level with the existing electrical vehicle and more for residential buildings one maintaining that same cost cap the upgrade of Service Necessary and second the ordinance for existing buildings only applicable to a major objection this depiction has been in the Green Building code of projects 25 thousand expedite that includes the significant structural work and is defined in separate requirements administrative code by the department of building inspection but consistently. I dont know if you saw the chronicle piece with the Seismic Safety Program for soft story buildings and the apparent rate of compliance projects but that i assume some of those projects might trigger this and have you done any thinking whether or not this will increase the costs of seismic retrofit and running into one another and our thoughts. A fantastic question the third criteria is for the emotion navigating in addition to the significant structural work needs to be significant alterations for mechanical or electrical and plumbing so common in a seismic retrofit project to pull the permit for the schematic retrofit and not entail that goods to the other buildings. There is another public goal this board has i think unanimously supported that is were seeing it mostly in seismic retrofits that is the inclusion of accessary dwellings or unit which still would entail pulling plumbing and electrical so i think there is we should have some i think careful thoughts about the goals if this only applies to new construction i would not be asking those but careful in 2015 the city mandated what is if you read the article the reason we have half or appears as september is 50 percent is noncompliance not because people dont want to do something about it but the probable cause active costs at the same time, were incentive listing the Affordable Housing in those projects so it should be talking to the people im not sure ms. Raphael the people that be effected were consulted as you represented or at least that is kind of the sense ive gotten over the last 96 hours. Precede. Thank you, sir in in addition lets say the threshold has been crossed and cost consideration there are two or three outs with regards to the ordinance one is this ordinance alone cant trigger an upgrade to the Electrical Service so which will be an important consideration and discussion where youre addressing accessary dwellings to a seismic retrofit project written that will be a typical for that scale of projects to include changing the actual structure for the grid and so what this ordinance in those cases where if the amount of charging is required for new construction requires a upgrade of Electrical Service not within the scope the project allows to scale back for the e b charging for that to accommodate even if it means no charging the second provision where a residential project may petition to the director of the Building Department will constitute a hardship they can allow an be alternative pathway and third this is specifically for not exclusively for residential by residential and nonresidential a finding the infeasibility because of state has requirements for excess ability when provides for electrical vehicle chasing and the existing buildings generally not been with future accessibility requirements in mind when not possible to meet the 0 possibilities we have exemption for all parking space if necessary to not cause on undue hardship. What does that cost for me to prove that. There is a professional cost similar for the cruel design as well. That concludes my presentation. A more detailed summary of the adjusted amendment and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Supervisor peskin if i may to our point we reached out to the Apartment Association as we did to all stakeholders there engagement became much more focused end of last week, we would be happy between now and next week to sit down and discuss in all the detail that is necessary to see if amendments are needed when we looked at their ask it didnt look like there were amendments needed but if there are well bring them to you. I dont want to put words in your mouth and have present of representation but im under the envision theyre under the envision that applies to new construction and didnt release that until it popped up on the intersect thursday evening. I cant say whether that came from and say were happy to more than happy to sit down and go through step by step every concern and see if, in fact, the ordinance is unnecessarily problematic. Not only on behalf of the the Apartment Association but saying that on behalf of the tenants because to the extent that the city is telling those folks hey mandate retrofit and adding things those costs capitalized costs can urban design passed through and raised rents so this is a complicated formula that has my attention more than 2050. Noted. Thank you okay through the chair so you know certainly i did see the correspondence coming in regarding the Apartment Association and this is a concern you spoke to we had the significant go renovation i want to reiterate that on page 4 it talks about the definition of major alternative sf virmentd clarifies the ordinance is applicable to Green Building requirements since 2008 as mentioned that is already requiring the lead infiltrate or better in those buildings so i think you heard about the very exception that were made to the extent you would not be providing electrical vehicle chargers in certain situations so i will, happy to follow up with sf environment and other stakeholder in the issues they brought to us but perhaps at the time may be go to Public Comment and hear from the members of the public on any issued. Im happy to adopt those and continue a week youll work out it out and why not open up for Public Comment first speaker please. Good afternoon, supervisors brooke with the coalition for better hours while we applaud the efforts as environmentally concerned partners in San Francisco we do point to this as a failure of progress never we approached by anyone from either the st. Josephs the Mayors Office by the commission about this. Were concerned about the issues relating to people or to folks who are doing go seismic to retrofit only those the believes and how to respect that wed like this to be continued are biefkd whatever to put aside to have that opportunity we should have had to address this issue beforehand and never during the process were we reached out by anyone that is a failure and shouldnt be allowed to go forward without our input since the Residential Housing industry is a huge part of this legislation thank you. Thank you, mr. Turner. Next speaker, please. Gamechanger supervisor peskin and members of the board im the director of Public Policy for chair point and pleased to support this legislation that has been sponsored by the mayor and supervisor tang that is the latter Electrical Vehicle Network over 33 thousand charging ports within the every 3 seconds a driver stops at a station and because of that be anchor point have driven many millions and active in the development of Green Building standards throughout california for electrical vehicle since the original statewide for a electrical vehicle or pe b readiness codes were adopted that legislation build on statewide readiness standards and supports the Climate Action stream by expanding assess to clean alternative infrastructure and supporting the g h g of 40 percent blow 1990 levels in 2050 that will address the long term demand for several reasons it includes the measures to accommodate the future for existing buildings undergoing the retrofits and supports others in the long term i agree with director raphael plan and simple pb are the demand is growing and california currently close to reaching ousted 25 percent of sales those are hire workplace the city of San Francisco the u. S. Pb sales had their highest on record and 2017 is way above pace and well see that pg e projects the number of sir, thank you you can submit the rest of our comments we say to diverse everybody the same amount of time thank you very much. I apologize. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors my name is moreen im the director of a nonprofit called charge across town to get supervisor katie tang into an electrical vehicle and all across california we start as a project with the San Francisco indictment back in 2012 helping to promote electrical vehicles in structure in commercial and residential buildings and found we were a little too soon for the chicken and egg problem not enough demand and with the developers and landlord we refocused our efforts and focused on the consumer end our goal to educate the consumers about electrical vehicles and the technology to continue to push forward for California Environmental laws as you may know and the city knows our great mayor knows San Francisco is the ev adoption and awareness we ought pays the rest of country however, charging is a huge hurdle to ease adoption we hear that over and over as we talk to executors across the state here in inform 0 thirty percent of our folks live lack of charging stations and charging options as a hurdle to owning a vehicle again, we talked to homeowners and parttime dwellers 90 percent of ev charging is done at home if keeping you informed they canned plug in theyll not buy the card were here to help to advance the adoption of ev thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello chair peskin jed for 350 is he port this legislation and thank you for all for their work on this we do a lot of work with the bay area Quality Management supervisor jeff sheehy is a board member on and they actually just are approving their climate excuse me their protection strategy for 2050 along the 7 sectors of the economy called out by ab 32 d cashing is absolutely critical of the climate protection strategy where we need to be in 2050 the cost in the presentation for 20 percent is so low compared to the cost of construction and the Property Values are the highest in the country housing is a big profit so much it is in the new newspaper in other cities theyre the property taxes are although i actually oppose those amendments weakening this legislation no reason we need to weaken that legislation at all eventually well be 100 percent fossil fuel for transportation the region is moving there the bay area air Quality Management is pushing us there so the idea were going slow that in some way a baffling to me well be 100 percent electric and some alternate fouls supervisor tang is a caution protective eerie trust for full renovation are not too loss for construction we need to get this done and currently reaching to the next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im the zero Mission Structure project manager for the development and are you this exists to help to accelerate im here to support the readiness ordinance rapid uptick of the electrical vehicle is key to meeting governor browns idealogy by 2050 that is coming fast on the roads about 200 and 85 thousand of them and were not that far way of from 2025 that is critical in getting to the climatic change and the ev readiness ordinance will enhance the charging stations and there assess in the multiple unit dwellings and workplace charging that is a 92 must if we achieve that adoption and also will likely result in lower costs than for retrofitting the buildings in the future and finally you know california is a leader in Emission Technology and doesnt the to the environment and San Francisco is on the cuttingedge so we applaud what the city is doing and encourage the adoption of this important ordinance thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners chair peskin joel koppel a parttime Planning Commissioner my day job it is the construction city i take care of the constitutional Energy Illustration were excited to see that i want to talk about the construction portion of why this legislation is a nobrainer. For the future then to do it after the fact this completely makes sense our history is involved in the discussion and happy to be in full support of ordinance. Thank you, commissioner. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon again koegd existed to be here to support in ordinance it was to make sure that San Francisco adequately prepares for the vital challenges we know that lies ahead one of the gold to reduce the photo copy that means k345i7b9 new housing to make it the data consistently shows the electrical vehicle is growing we want to acknowledge the hard work and a pleasure to work with them since last november they opt to marry their to make sure the master and housing vendors are involved and whenever one the members has questions they were responsive and whenever a City Department has a new policy proposal that impacts how the housing is in San Francisco we look forward to engaging them when necessary and building this is as collaboration insures the Building Departments and we want to thank you for everyone involved on the issue thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Eddy executive director of right line defense a nonprofit that works onville issues at Hunters Point we worked with connecting bayview to the policy marking for the California Public Utilities Commission the California Energy commission to move forward to connect to all of a sudden communities this has been the taerlth of resources to make sure that community can get access to solar and Energy Effective and charging stations were in support of readiness we believe that is an important policy to make electrical vehicles more affordable to the Disadvantaged Community and thank you to the advocates weve seen that envelopes so for purchasing or at large vehicles are increased into cool for instance, with the household with incomes excuse me lens three hundred percent will equal to the Poverty Level we see incentives like the battery vehicles 7 thousand the the infrastructure is a huge open o gallows to get an electrical vehicle thats why at California Energy commission and public works continues to shift we would like to see that happen at the local level and then like to thank supervisor katie tang and the Mayors Office and the Sf Department of the environment for this for to create a clean job and cleaner community thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. It will supervisors im the fund and ceo of the services were a San Francisco based company that exclusively snauldz electrical vehicle chargers into apartment buildings were currently in the process of construction in dozens of buildings in San Francisco and i want to express our support for the ordinances and make a couple of comments to help one is according to the Public California auto dealers last month 8. 2 percent of all the vessels registered in San Francisco were plug in so those say a tremendous number considering the population and highlight studies weve performed in with previous go legislation toe state level that had showed for every vehicle that becomes electric youre generating 10,000 a year in Economic Activity by eliminating gasoline 0. 80 on gallons of gone that is roughly three hundred and three hundred 50 per vehicle in Francis Scott keys in the city and county of San Francisco so currently electrical vehicles as well as equal lonely. Thank you. Mr. Chair and supervisors im the director of policies for the center of Sustainable Energy to alert the renewable incur by Renewable Energy we happen to run the project that is the state program for electrical vehicles and for the infrastructure that is charging commit well be administering 200 million in block grant for the state to support the infrastructure i know never to go after safety and one up on numbers and many of the things ill tell you is repeating what my colleagues said from sf environment in the position were in with the data on all the electrical Vehicle Users across the state and to promote additional use it is absolutely true the logic we need to get more electrical vehicle chargers and make that infrastructure affordable and acceptable so we here to speak in strong support of this bill that is elegant and appreciate the amendments and the concerns to avoid additional costs to low income multi unit dwellers to the building residential sector and from our experience the amendments and many of the solution available in front of sf environment can provide those solutions were all to commend this effort and thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And any other members of the public line up to our right and my left. Good afternoon, supervisors im charlie work on Government Affairs and i want to start off by seeing i think that ordinance makes sense for the new construction but to combat existing buildings ordinance didnt seem to makes sense well appreciate some effort to go biefkt the ordinance and perhaps reconsider how it effects existing buildings i think the department of the environment does great work and support them on many levels unfortunately it is just not a true statement that the managements or managers and owners of the housing are responsible and not on this ordinance the outreach is not there we you know, i watch our hearings our hearings every tuesday and sauce that what billed as new construction the ordinance becomes public on the agenda that was listed on thursday afternoon so we have a number of concerns i had a concern about the definition of the extent of the alteration but the bottom line in the reason the existing building is a different animal the wiring is not there the infrastructure is not there sub metering is not there not considered the vast majority of building were built before 1970 the building im in was built before 1911 so a number of residents we would request a number of amendment that didnt apply to existing buildings well request exceptions for seismic retrofit supervisor peskin runs as a city expense and request for the building undergoing adu that seems like a thing that is the the straw that broke the camels back we ask you thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi supervisors im a Property Owner and probably the only one speaking today as opposed to as you sit here now the policy and im simply echoing the other housing speakers here today this legislation should to the extent that is mandatory should be mandatory on new construction if you with go back and alone to the building inspection hearings that was billed as addressing new construction the lack of outreach is regrettable i hope that will be corrected this week for San Francisco from a perspective the upgrades electrical upgrades can go triggered from the minor changes of the building simply put in a plug in a kitchen can trigger the need to put in a new panel and pg e started talking about new transforms before you know that it is up to one and 50 thousand cost i noted the discussion about exemptions there is a definition between the language of the digest and what is exempted and the language in the code the code is much more vague and work has to be done on that to alleviate what is talked about. Thank you, sir anyone from the public wish to comment for Public Comment seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor tang. Thank you very much for all your comments i definitely took not and will try to circle back to address some of the concerns i did want to just reiterate i think something that mr. Hopper said this legislation is not actually going to trigger or didnt apply to we dont trigger there in ordnance your electrical upgrades the jury traerthsz are additions where the external for memorable go and electrical and or Plumbing Systems are proposed under your own project not through our requirement here under that e b ordinance it is something i hope is clear on pages 4 and 5 under the definition other than we not tried to hide the ball that applies to major alterations it always has been in the legislation we can talk through overseeing for todays purposes id like to make a motion then to adopt the amendments that we have discussed in that sf environment and continue this for one welcome back to the next land use and transportation and then well have our followup conversation in the meanwhile. Supervisor jeff sheehy. Without objection we will adopt the amendments and continue this item for one week and that concludes our agenda were adjourned go. Shop and dine the 49 promotes local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local Services Within the neighborhood we help San Francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. Medina