10,564,736. Welcome, fannie. Good morning, commissioners. Program analyst for the office of community partnership. I am here to request modification to our existing contract with the institute on aging for the provision of the Community Living fund program to include a pilot for the administration of the Public Guardian housing fund. Currently, we provide the Services Using a twoprong approach of coordinated Case Management and purchases of goods and services. It serves San Francisco residents 18 and older with incomes of 300 of the federal poverty level. They must be able to live in the community with appropriate support and have demonstrated need with service or resource to prevent institutionalization. The modification we are requesting today for the provision of the monthly subsidies and moverelated costs for Public Guardian and conservators. Under the department of aging and Adult Services the office serves at the courtappointed conservator of vulnerable individuals and estates. Due to declining health, some of these individuals are marginally housed for prolonged periods of time while waiting for appropriate housing option. This funding will be used to help them attain or be placed in a safe and stable home such as assisted living, supported housing or similar housing. Those served must meet the c. L. F. And pg criteria. We will provide administration while the p. G. Office is Program Support including Case Management, in person visits, monthly approval of the housing subsidies and other activities to ensure the equitable access and appropriate use of the funds. The p. G. Office will prioritize access based on the conserveties need and the amount will be set okays by case base on the casebycase basis. The subsidy will range depending on the clients need, functional and financial. 30 to 50 of their income while others may be subsidized up to 100 due to lack of income or resources available. Based on the current need the p. G. Has identified for this funding, the fund can cover up to 10 conserveties annually. It will include monthly subsidies and moverelated cost and security deposits, moving boxes, packing and transportation for the move and furniture and other similar items. At this time i would be happy to answer questions from commissioners. I have one question. From the time the process begins for the individual until it is approved and the individual begins to get services, how much time does that normally take . Depending on where they are, we have entered into agreements with the facilities or supportive housing. If that is in place it could be very quick, within, i would say, less than a month. I would say two to four weeks. Then additional time may be required if vendor agreements havent been set yet. Thank you. Any other comments . A question on the operating expense details. The consultants, line 21. Appendix page b1, page 3, line 21. The contractor. Yes, at this time because this is a pilot program, c. L. F. May need to pull in a temporary staff to get this up and running. There is some funding allocated to allow that. Then as you can see on the next year, it is blank because by then we participate there will be an actual staff. Over the page, the purchase of service detail. 304,348 each year. What are they . That is the actual subsidy, the funding for the subsidies and the moverelated costs. Thank you. I have two questions. First should i consider the c. L. F. Similar to purchases services and Case Management. Are those similar in nature like a pace program. Should i think of c. L. F. Like a pace program . I think it would be similar. Of course, pace has something other. I think there are elements, the purchase of service dollars. Other than that, no, this is intensive Case Management to help people who are at risk of institutionalization to come out and live in the community, the community can mean in this case assisted living, but generally living in the community in San Francisco. We have found that the intensive Case Management is often what people need to stay at home safely. I want to add i it is the pay or of last resort. Any other comments or questions from the commission . Any comments or questions from the public. Hearing none, may i have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Further comment . All in favor . Any opposed. Thank you the motion carries. Item j2019 through june 30, 2021 an additional amount of 200,000 plus 10 continuing been see for a total amount not to exceed 1 million. This item before you was an ad back. It is 100,000 per year ongoing with the idea of supporting cantonese language capacity in Advocacy Services around the Skilled Nursing facilities and assisted living facilities. We are going to do that in cooperation with the ombudsman who are going to use this funding to hire a contonies speaking staff person to focus on that. Ombudsmen provide services. They are known for responding to complaints by residents. They do a number of other things, providing consultations to facilities, families, residents, letting them know about their rights and things like that. Wit to any advance healthcare directives completed in a sniff. That is a legal requirements. Also including legislative hearings and changes in regulations and practices in this area. This is going to focus on skilled nurses facilities. Much of the work is with clients. They will also focus time on outreach and educational presentations within the facilities and within the target population to try to increase awareness and accessing of Ombudsman Services. Beyond the cantonese capacity that will be increased here, the program itself has a pretty good language capacity including mandarin, spanish and french and japanese. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments . A quick one. Within all of this on page 7 of 8. There is the designated community focal point. Is that where it is advertised. If you go there, people would hear about it and be able to know . The focal points are age and disability resource centers. California department of aging wants to make sure that when we do our big area plan we designate community focal points. These are places where hubs where information can be given out about the variety of services available. The California Department of aging wants us to make sure we identify those focal points in our contract documents with every contract that involves cda funding. The idea is here and it will be clear that the Ombudsman Program will say these people are out there. Yes, first the ombudsman can reach out to be sure they are aware of the services. We are also making sure the agencies are aware of the Ombudsman Service should someone come into that site needing assistance related to the facility. The idea is that the sites would know about that. They are informed and could helped. Thank you. Yes on the subcontractors 9 and 10. Chinese mandarin specialists. The other one is another dialect. Why is there a difference of 28,000 versus 16,000 . Is that because of the number of hours or what . Yes, the number of hours. What this represents back here is that the Ombudsman Program is doing whatever they can to get language capacity and get qualified people working for them. Sometimes there are people excellent ombudsman staff who have other things going on not looking for a fulltime job. Benson has done well to work with those folks to keep them in his stable of staff out there in the community so that is the difference there. Thank you. Any other comments or questions . Any comments or questions from the public . Hearing none may i have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Any further comments or questions . Hearing none, call the question. All in favor. A. Thank you the motion carrieds. Next is to all right. Item 8. A motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during closed session pursuant to San Francisco administrative code section 67. 12a. Do i have a motion for discussion purposes to disclose . So moved. Second. The motion is whether we should or should not disclose. If you are in favor of disclosure please indicate. Those opposed to disclosure. All in favor of not disclosing. A. Any opposed thank you. The motion is not to disclose the items that were discussed in the closed session. Any Public Comment on that particular motion . Thank you. Any general Public Comment . Good morning, commissioners and executive director. I am the director of the Richmond Senior center. I am not sure if this is the time to come in or if i should have come in at the beginning of the meeting. We look to invite you to an event we are hosting on october 19th. The Richmond Senior center in partnership with the round table, a coalition of senior agencies are going to be hosting one hard thing. That is an event we started with our village to recruit neighborhood volunteers to send them in pairs of two or three to the homes of seniors who have requested help with one hard thing. We did it twice a year at the start and the end of daylight savings time. It started with setting back clocks. Then additionally doing Something Like flipping a mattress or cleaning out behind the fridge or changing the Smoke Detector battery, those things that help people remain in their homes. It is so popular we do it quarterly. We wanted to host an event this october that encouraged leadership of agencies that serve seniors so they could see some of the great work other agencies are doing and meet the senior in the community. I did send an insight and you should get an email. We would love you to join us to see the good work that is happening out there. Thank you very much. Any other announcements . May i have a motion to adjourn. Motion. Second. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. When i meet with seniors in the community, theyre thinking about the future. Some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood thats closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. Thats why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. So how does this work . Prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. Under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2 growth a year. But when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. Compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. Thats where prop 60 comes in. Prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. Remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the Property Value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. If you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. This means that if your existing home is worth 1 million in market value, your new home must be 1 million or below. If youre looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105 of your exist egging home. Which means if you sell your old home for 1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than 1. 15 million. If you sell your existing home at 1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than 1. 1 million. Know that your ability to participate in this Program Expires after two years. You will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. So benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. Just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. For more, visit our website, sfassessor. Org, supervisor peskin good afternoon. Welcome to the land use meeting for september 30th. I am aaron peskin. Ms. Major, any announcements . Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon will appear on the october 8 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Item number 1 is ordinance amending the planning code to designate 2031 bush street, aka Kinmon Gakuen building, as a landmark under article 10 and affirming appropriate findings. Supervisor peskin thank you, ms. Major. Before we introduce Shannon Ferguson from the Planning Department, i would like to be listed as cosponsor of this landmark designation. The case report was really a pleasure to read and very well done. And very edifying and of course, speaks to terrible parts of our American History and San Francisco history relative, not only to executive order 9066, but acts of local governments, including our school board in the day. Its almost the opposite of todays dynamics where we have a racist, xenophobic president and a very Progressive School board. In those days, actually, Teddy Roosevelt i learned from the case report, was the one accusing, and correctly so, our school board of being in those days, xenophobic. And racist. The history of the building is amazing from 1926 and even on the site prior to 1926. And i was also learned things about the japaneseamerican community in San Francisco that i didnt know. Always thinking that the japaneseamerican community was in japantown and the western addition, but did not realize that the district that i represent, chinatown, actually has a proud japaneseAmerican History as does the district that supervisor haney represents in the south of market. So that was anyway, it was a great case report. I commend it to anyone. I want to thank former landmarks board member, former board of appeal member, and Planning Commission sue guya, who took the time to note a handful of very small typographical things that need to be fixed in the case report. He should know, because he worked then and now in the company. Thank you, for your very, very careful reading. I read the case report, but did not find those. So thank you, bill, if youre watching. And with that, i would like to ask ms. Ferguson from the Planning Department to come up and present on item number 1. And we are joined by vice chair safai. Good afternoon. Im here today to present the Historic PreservationCommission Recommendation to designate 2031 bush street as article 10 landmark. The building is located on bush street in the japantown and is known as the Kinmon Gakuen build. It was part of the civil rights project which was funded by an underrepresented Community Grant by the National Park service. They unanimously recommended designation on april 3, 2019. Constructed in 1926, the Kinmon Gakuen building represents only one of four purposebuilt Community Facilities in japantown, whose construction was funded by and for the local americanjapanese community. It was with the u. S. Citizens of world war ii. At the home of the booker t. Washington Community Services center, from 1942 to 1952 which provided the africanamerican youth with educational and recreational facilities. The period of significance for the building is 1926 to 1952. And the designation includes both exterior and interior characterdefining features. For over a century, the building has served as an Important Community anchor and gathering place. If designated, the building would be the first landmark in the city associated with San Franciscos japaneseamerican community and the history of japantown in the western addition, which is one of three remaining japantowns in the country. The department has determined that it meets the requirements. The hpc and the Planning Department recommend landmark designation. This concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer questions. Supervisor peskin seeing no questions from my colleagues, i do also want to thank him forgetting this on the work for getting this on the work program and this building be added to our list of landmark buildings in the city and county of San Francisco. With that, i open up to Public Comment. Commissioner . Thank you very much, president peskin, supervisor safai, supervisor haney. Thank you very much for talking about the history and the very short period of time about japantowns existence. Yes, its south park in supervisor haneys district. Yes, grand avenue between bush all the way up to california street in chinatown. And, yes, in the western addition, we used to call it the fillmore, ja japantown. From our perspective, Kinmon Gakuen was a place to hang out. You went to school all day and at 2 30 when you got out, mama said you have to go to the japanese school. So all of us had to go down there. It was okay because it ended 6 30 and then you went to the basement and judo. On the weekends, it was a Movie Theater. We used to call it sword fighting movies, friday, saturday, sunday. It was a social network of our community. Also for myself when we talked about the days of infamy in the exhibit, in washington at the smithsonian. When we first went there, the first sight was a replica of the Kinmon Gakuen, where the japaneseamericans assembled. We ask for your approval and we appreciate it, but there are folks in the community now that try to deny that the concentration camps existed. There are challenges we even lived there. Some of this is going to come to light, because we have a sign that is coming up and there are individuals fighting us with the semantic and the word concentration camps. Keep going, you dont have to wrap up, if you want to keep talking. Basically, what i was trying to say, folks think that japantown is a fourblock area. But as you know it was extended to the fillmore area as well. Its important to us because again the painful relationship of what happened. Its interesting that only now in this time in the year of our lord, 2019, that were talking about the first Historical Building preserved for the japaneseamerican community of San Francisco. The gateway for japan in terms of this nation. Thank you very much, supervisor. Supervisor peskin thank you, commissioner. It is amazing to me to hear that there are deniers of executive order 9066. There are many people alive who were gathered up by United States military troops and sent to the racetrack in san matteo county before they were put on rail cars and sent to a spot in the desert north of delta, utah, which is now a historic site. I attended the ribboncutting of the museum in delta the summer before last. It is all there. Its documented by a photographer, dorthea lang. It is in the archives of the United States of america and it happened and its shameful. Can i ask through the chair, the commissioner a question . Just for clarity, commissioner, just so we know, so were ready for it. Is it about the word concentration or people that are denying it even happened, or is it people concerned about this particular site being folded into the history or recognizing part of the history of japantown. Just a little clarity on that. To be clear on it, its one particular individual. Im not going to say a group of individuals. That one individual might have folks that feel that way, but in terms of your remarks, its all of the above. Denial of the concentration camp experience. For us, the darkest day in history. We have to look at the truth in the terms of our own wellbeing and historical basis, how then can we improve ourselves. For my mother and father, brother and sister, it was a concentration camp. That garden is what we called cottage row, but for years and years, because i live next to that, that park really didnt have any significance. Today its being dedicated. Thursday at the park and Recreation Commission, that signage is going to be challenged. We hope that the park and Recreation Commission has approved that very word in terms of what is the truth for us in the community. So i hope i answered your question, supervisor, but, yes, its really, really a terrible, angry thing to have that kind of emergence of discrimination, racism in the city and county of San Francisco at this time. Im not surprised by the atmosphere that is among us to promote those kinds of ideas. But we in the japaneseamerican community, and the biggest appointment, we did not point, we did not do anything wrong. There was no due process, 120,000 japaneseamericans on the west coast. Supervisor safai thank you, commissioner. Supervisor peskin subject of very famous Supreme Court decisions. Supervisor safai i was going to say, both supervisor haney and i were an event where the daughter of the landmark case was there. The daughter was there and she spoke extensively on that and what that meant. And reminding people that these were american citizens that were, in many cases, treated that way. And we always need to remember that. History is extremely important. I want to thank you for coming out and sharing that today. Thank supervisor brown for her support on this particular historical significant building. Good afternoon, chair, supervisors. Im one of the Board Members of Kinmon Gakuen. For the reason that children of japanese descent were discriminated in public schools, Kinmon Gakuen was founded in 1910. They rented a small house at 2301 bush street and operated there until 1921 when the new building was constructed at 2031 bush street. That is its current location. The schools operation, as mentioned, was interrupted by the war and due to the hysteria brought on by the war, the u. S. Government seized the building and used it as a Processing Center for the hundreds of japaneseamerican families that lived in japantown or San Francisco before they were sent to the concentration camps. As supervisor peskin mentioned, it was used by the booker t. Community center after the war. The building was returned to Kinmon Gakuen, and resumes operations, but found it challenging because most of the families did not return after being incarcerated. But they persevered. In the late 60s and 70s. Japantown was hit with urban renewal, that forced removal of many residents. This made it very difficult for the school to operate, but the organization again veered and in order to offset the operating costs, the auditorium was used as a Movie Theater for a short period, until enrollment increased. The school is graced by visits from japans royal families on three separate occasions. As a historic and Cultural Resources to foster the u. S. And japan relations. This is the reason were asking you to approve the landmark designation. Thank you very much. Supervisor peskin thank you. Just because i had a second to look it up on the internet, its kind of interesting, if you think about our chief executive in the United States today, but it was actually George Herbert walker bush who apologized 45 years later to the japanese and it was president Ronald Reagan who signed the reparations bill into law. With that, any other members of the public for item 1 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I assume that you will update the case report with the things that the commissioner has given us. And i would like to make a motion to send item 1 to the full board with positive recommendation. Thank you, again. We will take that without objection. The next item. Item 2 is ordinance amending the environment code to require commercial parking lots with more than 100 Parking Spaces to install electric vehicle charging equipment, amending the police code. Supervisor peskin i am a proud cosponsor of mayor breeds legislation before us which would require commercial parking lots and garages with more than 100 Parking Spaces with electric vehicle charging infrastructure. I will not regale you with why this is so important, but with that, turn it over to Charles Sheahan from the department of environment. Thank you. San Francisco Department of the environment. Im going to walk you through a short presentation and then happy to take any questions after. Can we have the slides, please . Okay. Electric vehicle charging and commercial parking facilities. This would amend the environment and police codes. The city has a goal of net zero emissions citywide by 2050. Were on track, making progress, even though the population has grown 22 since 1990. Our economy has expanded by 166 since 1990. Emissions are down by 36 . So while that is good news, emissions are down, there are still emissions that are left. You see our emission pie chart. Of course on the right, the biggest slice of the pie, almost 50 is transportation. Transportation generates 46 of the citys emissions today. The largest generate other of emissions generator of emissions. Lets dive deeper into the transportation part of the pie. You can see, weve analyzed offroad equipment, ships and boats, but the largest generator is the private cars and trucks that you see on the road today. What were really talking about is tailpipe emissions. Eliminating those tailpipes is going to improve the air we breathe locally and reducing emissions in the transportation sector, more than just a check box in the Emission Reduction schedule. We like to check the boxes, but its about cleaning the air and making San Francisco a more livable city all. You can see the need for that on the slide. Highest concentration of particulate matter is the corridors and those run through vulnerable communities. These communities are impacted by gasoline and dieselpowered cars and switching to Clean Electricity is going to improve the air around those corridors. We know what we need to do. Its the how that is a little more challenging. We need to mode shift and fuel switch. We need to reduce the number of vehicles operating on the roads. That meanings getting people on bikes, sidewalks, or in public transit. That is the core of the transitfirst policy. Its designed to reduce congestion and emissions. Today, we surface passed the surpassed the goal of 50 . Were shooting for 80. And while were mode shifting and getting cars off the road, the cars still on the road, they need to be electrified. We need to get them off gas and diesel and on to renewable electricity. I like to say that the program we enjoy today is more than just for your home, but for your vehicle and anything else that it can power. To that end, the mayor passed an authored an easy road map this year and it calls for goal of 100 electrification by 2040 and identifies specific actions, public awareness, incentives, charging infrastructure. The electric grid, medium and heavy duty vehicles and emerging mobility. I mentioned charging before, because one of the key barriers in the city, one of the key barriers to full electrification of our Transportation System is access to charging. We live in a dense city. Twothirds of the residents live in multiunits dwellings. Its hard to install charging infrastructure in those multiunit dwellings, as opposed to a singlefamily home. Or you can just come home and trickle charge off the wall. That is very hard to do in multiunit family dwellings, especially the older ones. If were go to facilitate, we need more charging and more confidence in the Public Charging Network here in the city. We have been working on it. This is not our first ordinance related to the issue. We have the e. V. Ready ordinance. It requires 100 of Parking Spaces and new construction to be e. V. Ready. Thats been on the books for a couple of years now. Were taking care of New Buildings being built. What were focusing on is existing buildings. So heres the current charging network. 750 public charging ports throughout the city. Those e. V. Registration numbers, 10,000, thats based on october 2018 figures. So when the figures come out october this year, we think the number will be closer to 20,000. Maybe even 25,000, 30,000 registered e. V. S in the city. So people are adopting e. V. S, but based on the 18 numbers, we only have 27 public charging ports per registered e. V. Even though this ordinance were talking about today targets the private sector, were already under way with an initiative in the public sector. Public sector and private sector. So the city has opened up 38 public municipalowned garages and invited e. V. Developers to come in and develop charging stations. Weve gotten proposals for every one of the 38, so were working hard on the municipal and the public side. What will this ordinance do . Its going to target commercial garages and parking lots with 100 or more park spaces, thats approximately 300 sites in the city. Its going to require level2 charging stations at 10 of those Parking Spaces. Or a functionally equivalent number of fast chargers. And the compliance date is january 1, 2023. It requires good faith analysis of technical feasibility and ties the permit process to the permits issued by sfpd for commercial parking facilities. Hold on. Can you go back . Is this existing garages . All of the garages in the city with 100 or more Parking Spaces . Correct, existing. You say you tie it to the permitting process, most times theyre already permitted, so how are you going to deal with the existing . They renew each year. They put in the paperwork, get approved. So there might be a tweak or two to make to the paperwork showing theyre in compliance. Supervisor safai part of their annual renewal, well get them then . Yes. Supervisor safai got it. Thank you. Okay. So there is also a waiver process. It focuses on three categories. One, is there sufficient Electrical Capacity . Do they need to install a transformer, which is cost prohibitive and challenging. If so, that could generate a waiver. Two, is there infeasible site conditions . Do they need to raise the height of the ceilings, regrade the pavement. Again, that can be challenging and generate a waiver. Three, was there a good faith effort put in with at least two e. V. Charging providers that was then declined because there could be no agreement at minimal or no cost. An example. If there is an existing Parking Facility that is changing use and its under way with the building and inspection team, going from a commercial Parking Facility to a commercial office building. Or maybe the parking building is going to be demolished and in its place a residential building is going to be constructed, this is not an investment or attractive Business Case fort e. V. Charging developers and parking facilities, so that could also generate a waiver. Fairly simple. San Francisco Department of environment is going to administer the waiver process. And of course were always looking for compliance. Thats where well work with the San FranciscoPolice Department who can suspend or revoke operating permits if there is noncompliance and of course, we can administer fines for noncompliance as well. I showed you this before. This is the baseline. This is where we are today. And this is the possible impact and reach when you combine the Municipal Initiative with the potential for the ordinance. As you can see, there is lots of potential. Its a little more focused on the parts of the city with the most multifamily, multiunit dwellings. But it gives potential access to charging in other parts of the city as well. In addition to creating confidence with our charging network, were also trying to bring e. V. S to those that arent necessarily looking at buying an e. V. Or dont think they have the means to buy an e. V. For example, we want to create an ombudsman position, a onestop shop, work with grid alternatives and state agencies that provide grants, rebates and incentives for lower income communities to help them offset the cost. Were going to work with city college like many cities do. There is the Apprenticeship Program with sfmta where students are trained for e. V. Mechanics. Were looking for other criticla. Weve been working with other cities around the region where the heavy duty trucks are going back and forth and working with bodies on grants, incentives and other initiatives to switch heavyduty vehicles to electric vehicles. With that, i will take any questions that you may have. Supervisor peskin so, obviously im a cosponsor of this, but i would like to make one, on the record, clarification, which i know my staff talked to the department of environment staff. Which is given the phasein period and given that there is actually thankfully less and less demand for parking, not to say that downtown is not congested, but we did hear from one garage owner who actually may be in the process of changing the use of a garage. And so what i wanted to do is be clear that its our intent that amongst the considerations made by the director when exercising discretion to waive this requirement, that those kind of thoughts be inculcated in the thinking and that the consideration on page 7 of the legislation regarding technical feasibility and the third regarding financial viability, be addressed appropriately and the regulations. And to that end, what i wanted to do was add a little bit of language that is not uncommon that would allow this board of supervisors to review the regulations and reject them for modify them by ordinance within a time frame of 60 days from when the director delivers those. And this is actually a template of what i might do in the ordinance. I want to put that on the record. Is that your understanding, charles . Yes, ive seen the proposed amendment and staff is comfortable with the language. Supervisor peskin good. The other question i had, was not just on the commercial side, but the residential side. Were developing and in some cases have developed very large residential complexes that have garages over 100 i can think of at least one in my district and there is parkmore and one in supervisor yees district. Is there any movement afoot to expand to residential as well . The e. V. Readiness would cover some of those properties that you mentioned that are in the planning or entitlement or yet to be built phase. So when theyre built, they will be e. V. Ready. That will take care of all New Buildings going forward. The existing multifamily unit dwellings, thats still a challenge. We started with the e. V. Readiness ordinance. Were now working on this initiative for private sector garages. Weve done the same for our municipal garages. So that is a bit of the next frontier. Its something weve been looking at, but its challenging from a infrastructure and cost perspective, but its still something were working on. Because the need for charging as we transition the entire fleet is going to continue to grow. Were on step 2 or 3 here and there is a few more after that. Supervisor peskin i look forward to having those conversations with you and your office going forward. Any questions, supervisor safai . Supervisor safai yes, thank you. First of all, i would like to be added as a cosponsor. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I know that we i dont know if you said this a letter from the building owners and managers appreciating the hard work that was done in support of this piece of legislation. I think its always great when the affected stakeholders have had the opportunity to weigh in and be part of the process. Even if they dont and then in the end come to the conclusion that they are suppor supportive of the legislation as drafted. I just wanted to say that for the record. I know chair peskin and supervisor haney got that letter today. Thats good. Thank you to the department of environment stakeholders and others that were part of that conversation along with the mayor and supervisor peskin and mandelman. The other question i had, the question i had is, in terms of the pricing. Thats one of the things that wasnt discussed today, that encourages or discourages people from using the stations outside of their homes, right . Because some people have solarpowered at their house, or access to different rates based on what has been negotiated as part of a larger package. But has there been thought or conversation put into the pricing to encourage people to utilize these charging stations and parking garages . Sure. So i believe both the prices can vary. I reason i know this, i have an electric car. Right. So for electricity rates, ill start there. There a couple of costs that go into charging your electric car. For rates, i believe pg e and clean power sf have demand Response Rates to take advantage. Youre couraged to when we drafted the ordinance, we wanted to make sure it wasnt one provider, but two providers, e. V. Station charging providers. So not only is the Parking Facility able to compete in the private sector, but also they can make sure that what is installed is going to be Cost Effective for the customers that are coming in to use the Parking Facility. I dont know how much the rates for electricity differ between like e. V. Go or charge point. Do they do have different rates. They do. So my question would be, if the city has gotten into the business of delivering energy i know theyre not a vendor, but has there been conversation about the city having ownership over some of the stations since they have their own rates and structures and that might be a way to keep the cost down and encourage people to utilize the stations. I would mostly defer to my colleagues on that issue, but i do have history and experience. I think through 2013, maybe 2015, charging at cityowned garages was free. It was a Cost Effective way to get things going. I think that has lapsed. But especially with some of the developments that may happen on grid ownership here in the city. That might open up unique opportunities for not only cityowned grid, but cityowned charging stations and rates for the charging stations. But im getting a little farther into the territory i get it. And again, im adding my name. I think this is a good piece of legislation, but sometimes we create policies and then we fall back less on implementation. And if people are not finding that this is Cost Effective, then only people that can afford that additional cost will take advantage of it on that level. And so i just i would like to see more thought put into actually the cost of utilizing it. Because we can expand these to as many garages as possible, but if only people with the extra disposable income that can use it. And they will sit there empty or not utilized. That makes sense, supervisor, im going to take note of that, on the cost for charging. One of the things, when we think about making sure everyone has access. One of the things in the e. V. Road map is the ability to educate and make aware to everyone, even those who dont think they have means, there are rebates and incentives by state agencies and entities for lowincome residents, that can significantly reduce the cost of purchase. Its not exactly the charging up paradigm, but were looking at reducing the cost of purchasing. Supervisor safai the other thing i would say as a person with one of these cars and drives it to the stations. Theyre not always very user friendly. If youre not a member, you have to sit there and call a 1800 number and youre looking for, this is 327 at this address. Theyre like, i cant find it. I dont know how to turn it on. So if youre trying to go into the Shopping Center and youre sitting there an additional 20 minutes. Why do i want to spend 20 minutes trying to get into the charging station when ill just drive it upstairs . So its not necessarily user friendly. I appreciate that youre trying to get two vendors, but i think the conversation in terms of the contract when you do provide it in a cityowned lot and youre signing those contracts, it should also be about usability. I agree. Supervisor safai we should make it more user friendly. Easy if you could just run your credit card, boom, its done fast. But sit there and make a phone call and search for the number, its not really user friendly. I get it. Its new technology. Just beginning. The last few years there has been more of explosion and availability of electric cars, but i dont want to see us pat ourselves on the back because we have 5,000 charging stations but no one is using them. The scenario you just described is what i experienced when i became a new e. V. Owner and i went to charge up. 20minute long conversation. There were several phone conversations. I was in the rush, panicked. I had no electricity in my new e. V. Thats one of the things were trying to address in the e. V. Road map, education and awareness. I think youre exactly right. I know that from personal experience. Supervisor safai one last thing. The only one that i know of in again this is about garages but the only streetcharging spot i know of is next the sfpuc. Is that discussed in this legislation . Thought of . Because another way also to expand peoples opportunity is not just in garages, but you can add parking spots to the conversation. Sure, so its not discussed in the legislation. I know the sfmta is conducting a curbside use assessment and that is going to be due