Chance of a major seismic event in 30 years. They could restore gas Service Within approximately six months after the seismic event in the order of the 1906 earthquake and fire. Electricity could be restored in approximately one week. It is in that context that we have today if you apply for a permit today existing requirements if you build a residential building there are numerous screen building requirements no additional efficiency requirements if you build an all Electric Building with gas that needs to be 10 more efficient. This body has previously voted to Carry Forward those requirements in the form every choiring Green Building rating systems. That is already the case also in the upcoming code for new residential construction. There are two ordinances current leap pending before the board of supervisors. One is not before you today but companion to this legislation to convince the city to not install gas systems in new buildings. This ordinance before you is the modification of the efficiency requirements for buildings including gas for residential and also expending the requirement to apply also to commercial new construction as well. The practical effect is extending the requirement to commercial reconstruction. There are a diverse array of all Electric Buildings across the community including small residential infill, affordable housing, schools, Office Buildings and dormitories at sfsu. Separate from this ordinance is the question that president mccarthy, you are predicting in our discuss to us meeting which is one of the broader questions around new construction in general and existing buildings and those are not directly addressed by this ordinance but definitely a priority for outreach and engagement in the community and it is our understanding mayor breed is in the process of issuing invitations for participation in a building de carbonization tax force including invitation to president mccarthy or delegate, if you would prefer, in order to begin the robust discussion. The broadker questions of complete approach and implications and how we can get there in a practical manner as well as addressing how can we make practical progress while ensuring racial and Society Equity in the existing building stock . There is a lot of work to do and discussion to have and that is beginning in the next few weeks. Thank you for your time. Any questions . Is Battery Storage part of this whole package . The ordinance does not require Battery Storage. Title 24 Energy Standards do provide credit. In order to build a building with natural gas you could use Battery Storage to meet the 10 compliance margin for new construction. Is it possible for the single family, family less than three floors and multifamilies greater than four floors to neat those efficiency requirements . Yes, it is. In the interest of time i abbreviated this presentation. I am not talking about all electric but mixed. Costeffectiveness studies that i pointed at in more detail at the previous meeting included construction strategies and expected costs. In a state wade context for statewide context for low wise and nonresidential buildings. Those mixed use buildings will be better than all Electric Buildings . No the preferred approach on average would be to build all electric. However, i took your question. No, no, no i dont mean construction cost, Energy Efficiency. Isnt that the idea . Sure. You are saying the mixed buildings may be better than all electric. They would be Higher Energy efficiency standard. All Electric Buildings are the most Energy Efficient. To reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. You are talking about emissions. All electric should have no emissions. Thats right. The mixed gas and Electric Buildings have to be more efficient than electrical ones. Is that possible . That is what im asking. To be more efficient in emissions . The mixed fuel buildings. Requiring it to be 10 more, 11 more and 28 more efficient. Is that possible . Is that achievable . It was detailed at length in the costeffectiveness study we discussed at the october meeting, yes, it is possible. I want to clarify. I think you were talking about different metrics. You were describing whether a property could have few error less intense Carbon Emissions than all electric property. I believe he was describing the overall Energy Efficiency. There are two different metrics. One is Energy Efficiency. I believe we are talking about the actual usage of electricity or energy regardless of sours. Yes you could use more energy in all Electric Building than mixed fuel building. The emissions would depend upon the source of that electricity. An all Electric Building receiving all Renewable Energy would have no emissions. 10 more emission based building would have more based on gas usage. This is only about new buildings. It does not apply to major renovations . Thats correct. Any plan to extend the experiences here to substantive renovation . The outreach to discuss how to address existing buildings on policy and financing and incentive front, public communication, all of that is about to begin. It is consistent with the goals laid down by may or breed and the goals in our Greenhouse Gas emission goals to address renovations, to address this comprehensively. This is focusing on new construction. The issues are quite more straightforward and we are going to take time to work through major alterations as well as ultimately minor alterations. Thank you. I just want to go on the record. We have lost three commissioners. They had appointments. We are down to four. Commissioner walker, commissioner moss. Thank you for announcing that. Thank you, mr. Hooper. I appreciate that we met on this and started the dialogue in discussing this. There is a lot of work to be done. Last night i was at a meeting with 70 small builders which we introduced this. It was a robust conversation. A lot of what ifs. I understand you are aware of what the concerns are, particularly because of the city and county, and particularly San Francisco. It is down to the practical progress that we make, to use your terminology and the outreach to the different stakeholders. Going forward, i think smaller buildings will be impacted. We are trying to figure out and mr. Hooper will help us. We will try to get good data how that will affect buildings between four to 12, and they are pretty much important to us here. The actual cost, we are not remotely close to agreeing on the actual cost. Is the Electric Building more expensive than gas . I agree i went from the journey where i now understand there is a lot of all electric water heaters. This is all very doable. The big one, of course, is the upgrading of power, and particularly my without ages today. That was discussed the infrastructure is not here for us to go all electric. A lot of people would make that argument last night and i it is an easy one to make. Pg and e brought a letter saying we are all for this, but is the infrastructure there to do it . That is a huge concern. One particular case on the record the infrastructure wasnt in place on a particular building. We dirt get the address so i dont know how factually this is. They had to upgrade the power on the street and transformers and it ran into huge amounts because the infrastructure wasnt there. We have these issues. As you said, you know, the practical progress we make to identify how we can insentify this across the board from large and big projects. The bigger projects can achieve these goals. It is the smaller projects and the projects in the city here. With that, i am supportive of what you have in front of us today and as you take this journey and i am excited to hear you are putting together the Mayors Task Force on this. I would love to i it is on sit d maybe a couple other people that would like to sit on it. Every time you deal with these legislations we are with everything discussed upfront. I know you are on a fast track with this. What is frustrating here in the commission we dont get a chance to really havent these ideas. They have to go straight up from the different committees up to the board of supervisors. You are right to get this done in january. Good luck and thank you for your time. I appreciate your helping us get an understanding and practical progress for the future along with the Mayors Committee to help us with future legislation coming down the pipeline. Thank you. With that if there is Public Comment . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. Is there a motion to approve . I move to approve. Second. We have a motion and second. I will do the roll call vote. roll call . The motion carries 41. 31. Okay. Commission near lee. That still carries with four, right . Does it need four . It needs a quorum. Was this on the agenda last month. I missed a lot of this. I apologize. Let me ask. Is the intent to lower emissions essentially right . We are trying to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, lower emissions. Going all electric will cut the emissions to zero for a building. Are we saying that we are allowing mixed fuel buildings only if they are more Energy Efficient than an all Electric Building . You are saying that you are allowing people to have gas in their home only if they can prove their building is more efficient than if it were all electric . Yes. This is what i am getting at. My question is it is possible to be more Energy Efficient than all Electric Building with a mixed fuel building . It is possible. You can comply. That the only thing i am concerned about. I am concerned that we are putting this legislation out there and saying it is not possible to meet this and you are forcing everybody to go electric. It is like lip service. We will allow you to do this if you can, but it is impractical. It is possible. I mean i have to, you know, i am not trying to drink the koolaid. This is where it is going, commissioner lee. How we manage the knockon effects. It is a journey we have to take here. To your point i have concerns as well that i hope the task force will address. This is the first step. We have a ways to go. 10 here. It is not a bad way to do this. We can put our toe in the water, as it were. Mr. Hooper and the department promised that they would work through the issues as we aroused them. In fair mess when we sit down and we get where we need to get, will we be 100 happy with this . I dont know but i do understand. By the terms of the ordinance it is not that the mixed fuel has to be 10 bet they are than all electric. The elect building would need to meet the california standards. They may need to take Energy Efficiency steps. Mixed fuel has to be 10 better than the building. Then i will change my vote. Do we have to. I would like us to recall the vote. I would recall the vote. roll call . Motion carries unanimously. Next item is number 8. Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed ordinance amending Building Code to extend for additional 6 months the time for existing buildings to have primary entries and paths of travel to the building accessible to persons with disabilities or receive a city determination or reasonable hardship and to extend the period for granting extensions for those deadlines. I brought this up a few fews months ago because of the high rate of noncompliance in the accessible business entry program. It is still where we have nearly 8,000 noncompliant. We have 3,000 that are compliant. Due to a recent notification that went out, it is about the fourth or fifth notification we have sent to owners, we are now getting about 140 or 150 responses in each week. Owners are a little more focused and they are more responsesive. We still believe that trying to give people another six months for compliance makes sense. We have been talking about that internally with the abe coordinating committee and a couple conversations with supervisor yee who has expressed an interest inputting forward an ordinance in january that would add six more months time. I will say we have had some expression of concern from at least one member of the Disability Access community who is not enthusiastic about giving more time. I am not sure if that person iss aware how much burden this sometimes puts on Small Businesses with leases where the owners make the responsibility for making the entrance compliant on them. It does become a little more complicated than i think the supervisor who originally introduced this had intended. The department, obviously, wants as much compliance as possible. We want more customers who are disabled to be able to get into these buildings, but we appreciate the fact that in some circumstances this is not a simple thing to do. In smaller numbers it is possible to do. We would like to go after those to make those higher priority so the ones with financial im feasibility are not airstriking point that is a bureaucratic nightmare for the Small Businesses or Property Owners. It is probably not going to be until january that this ordinance will move forward, but i want to let you know we are moving in that direction. Point of clarification. Is it december when the deadline is, what date . December 1st was the deadline for the compliance. There is a table with slightly different compliance deadlines depending on which category you fall into. This reality is this proposed ordinance will give everybody six more months to comply. Realistically meaning next july or august. I am going through it myself. I have three buildings which are compliant that i have to prove that they are compliant. It is not easy. It is my fourth time now dealing with one particular address. It was all done under a different permit finalized. It is not easy. So i definitely would be for. I am sure there is a lot of what you are talking about here people trying to get compliant and cant get there. I would be interested to know if there is a way to identify that. I have two buildings right now and i am rushing to get it done before december 1st here. We appreciate those who are responsive. Since the most resent notification we are getting more response. That is good news. The size of this universe is a total of 11,000. You know, right now there are still will 8,000. Last week it was 7994 that are still in the noncompliant category. For example what is the complaint there . What is the penalties if you are not compliant . Would you know them off the top of your head . Well, i think we would have to have a directors hearing and have to ascertain what kinds of monitoring fees to actually get someone into compliance once the deadline date is passed. We have been trying to give people as much time as possible. It is not always easy to get the certified person to do the survey that you may need in order to get there. We have some simple cases where they introduce an Automatic Door opener. There are a lot of sidewalk issues that come up that public works. That is my point. Two of the applications are actually in d. B. I. And signed off but are sitting in dpw. They will not be out by the first. What happens there . We keep appealing to public works to see if they can come up with a little more efficient system to move this along. I will say that kevin jenson, the public works staffs does come to these meetings trying to work with agencies to make this happen. We may need to revisit some of the slopelike issues. We know as director pointed out when this first passed is the city has some neighborhoods with a lot of slopes that are greater than 4 , and many of those with probably qualify for technical infeasibility or financial infeasibility. We are trying to work with public works to shrink the total size of the universe so we dont have those properties dragging down the compliance ratio. Your legislation is not parallel to the timeframe when you go into violation. What happens after the first . You are in violation, right . Yes, technically that is true. If we are able to introduce this in january, then we can hopefully give people the additional time until next july or so. Do you want to weigh in on that . If you are in violation, you are in violation. How do you undo that . First of all, i cannot issue 7,000 and then also we should tell the pilot association, they dont need to hire someone. We have at least 30 or 40 of them coming in already. We have a new construction. You are coming in and trying to eliminate as much as possible. We have problem to find a professional to do those work. Most engineers and architect dont want to do the liability. That is what we need to educate people to do it. The architect wont sign off on it. They didnt design it. You did it two years ago and you are asked to prove it is correct. You show the permit was done on this design, you are asking for an architect to sign off. A few years ago you can fill out the application by the owner. Some of them would come in yesterday and get three of those done. I know it is difficult, you know. It is good to help the Small Business, now it is hurting them more. I am if you are going to extend it out, i am worried about the down time. Commissioner. I think we are all sympathetic. The community has every right to have access to all facilities, and yet we are also looking at a world where the Small Business community and vacant storefront issue