Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 21317 20170214

SFGTV BOS Land Use Committee 21317 February 14, 2017

Would have been working. Im here to fight for ase that will prevent people from reckless speeding in our streets. Thank you. [applause] thank you. That concludes todays press conference that i want to thank the members of the media were here good i think rather than taking questions i like to give all you view an opportunity to individual interviews with all of the many voices who are here and what effect are two great mayors. Why think all the community and elected officials who are here vertically think our families and just and with one thought. From numbers of the public were wondering if this is the right policy, think about your family members. Think about what you would do if you came home and one of them wasnt home. And that was something we could do to prevent it. We are here for alvin son, for julie sun, for jennys mother, and for elizabeths daughter. We have to get this done. Thank you. [applause] all right. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the San Francisco board of Supervisors Committee in the meeting for february 13, 2017. My name is mark farrell. I will be chairing this committee and joined by the vice chair aaron peskin as well as supervisor katy tang. I want to thank sfgtv for covering todays meeting as well as the clerk of our meeting alisa somera. Madam clerk do we have any announcements. Yes. Please silence all cell phones and Electronic Devices and Electronic Devices. All documents submitted to the clerk and items will be on the submitted to the clerk and on the february 28 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Already. Madam clerk will you call item 1. Womb one is the environment at code for Green Building requirements for municipal builds and findings. Okay. We have staff here from the department to speak on this item. Good afternoon. Thank you chair farrell and members of the land use and Transportation Committee for hearing this item. Were ready for the over heads for the presentation. Okay. What you have before you are amendments to Chapter Seven of the environment code. Now this has been sponsored by the mayor and board president breed. So this ordinance is not a new ordinance. It is it ej rated back in 1998 when our first Green Building program in place. It morphed and changed in 2004 to adopt lead silver as the minimum building standard for municipal builderce and in 2011 got lead gold as the building standard. This change was also it was also the same as what was going on in the private sector where also lead silver to gold is now the standard citywide. Theres a context and the reason were having this ordinance come before you today and that is that the Building Code has changed, want only for the city but the stay wide so you have the California Energy code. As well as the california state Building Code and cal green are updated and our ordinance needs to corspend to that and lead leadership and Environmental Design has version three which is expired and now has version four so at one level had this is a clean up ordinance to make sure were in context but using it as an opportunity to clarify and look to the future. So how are we doing . This is just a quick snapshot how the city has doing implementing the lead ordinance since 2004. To date we have 51 municipal bodybuildings, nine are platinum. This is one of the largest municipal portfolios in the United States. Some specific examples handout hospital is an example of the laguna honda is a example the first lead hospital. And the academy is double load for construction and maintenance building. The airport terminal two is the first terminal to be lead gold in the u. S. Here in the building we find ourselves city heal is the oldest lead Platinum Building in the United States and with the retrofits that we did on this building the taxpayers as well as the employees can benefit tw of 25 Energy Savings and thousands of gallons of water saved and those are some of the benefit s and the new Public Safety you may not know not only is it home to our police and fire, but it has three living roofs, brain water harvesting, gray water reuse and water savings fixtures make this the most water efficient building in the citys municipal portfolio and designed before we were in a drought and having this as our goal and pushes toward the future and resilient for whatever is to come so the proposed changes to this ordinance are in three buckets. Updates which i alluded to. Clarifications to make this i clear and easier to implement ordinance and finally additions to look forward to the future so the proposed updates the California Energy code has been modified and we need to point to the recent code. The California Green code has been updated and we need to point to the recent code in our ordinance and finally lead itself has expired version three and on to version four which is heavily focused on energy and efficiency which will help us as we try and meet the statewide goals of zero Net Energy Building. The lead three to body four was perhaps the area that gave the Department Heads the most heart burn and concerned about the comp implications would be so we worked closely with public works and as with the Building Construction team, with the consultants to do an analysis of actual City Projects to see what the impact would be on the building if we go from three to four. For new construction was a wash and 0. 8 increase in the cost of the building. For renovations we get a range of impacts depending how we accommodate the Solar Photovoltaic system from 2. 5 to 5 increase in cost. We believe these costs can be mitigated to a large degree by up front planning and yet its important to go in with our eyes open and a small increase Going Forward. The clarifications that we put in place. The first one is that we shifted the applicability of this ordinance to have a threshold of 10,000 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet. Citywide that threshold is 2,500,000 square feet so were 25,000 square feet and leading by example but projects have a higher cost burden and asking us to join us in the spirit of lead if not certification of the second area had to do with the port. It turns out the port of San Francisco has its own Building Code and confusion as to whether or not Chapter Seven applied to the port and its explicit that section 7 05 and 706 that may seem redundant are not in effect for the port but the port changed the code to make sure its consistent with Chapter Seven. Theres a part of this program which is the waiver process so that if a City Department feels it cannot meet the standards set forth in Chapter Seven they can apply to get a waiver from either the certification for lead or specific elements that are in that certification, and for the port we have put in place a process in the port where they will do their own waivers and director of the port will have the authority to grant the waivers but we instituted a transparent Decision Making process where the task force will issue a recommendation to the port. The port will make a decision and made public at the Environment Commission and the port commissions, so we clarified and increased transparency when it comes to the port and theyre incredibly unthese yatdic and willing partner and the last clarification which was very important is that we made it clear that this ordinance does apply to major renovations and tenant improvements in leased space so for example when the San Francisco employees retirement or the Health Service system remodeled their location they do it now with a lead check list and with lead certification and that way the taxpayers, the employees, the visitors are insured to have the benefit of a lead certified building, so that was then the amendments, and the clarifications, so the updates and clarifications and now looking towards the future how can this ordinance prepare us for what is coming ahead . How can we look ahead at what the state of california is putting in place . What about our climate goals . So the proposed additions were asking each project to do a feasibility on what it takes to build that project to be zero net energy . Its a statewide goal where the Energy Budget for the building is the same as the energy generated on site through renewables. It doesnt make sense to do it for large skinny buildings but three or fewer stories we may be able to achieve net energy before the deadline by the state of california. Were asking projects to do a cost benefits analysis for solar plus storage and how do we take the solar on site and meld it with batteries and use that energy in the evening or in the event of an earthquake or other disaster . And finally were looking at what is actually going in those buildings and it turns out that the furniture in the buildings in fact the furniture youre sitting on now often contains toxic chemicals and flame retard arts so were putting language in the ordinance for the department of the environment to draft regulations and City Department to the change the procurement in the wonderful lead program soas thats a snapshot of this ordinance in terms like i said there is larger context why we need to do it now. We have amendments that have clarifications and updates s and the idea to looking to the future so any questions you might have i am open. Colleagues any questions right now . Okay. Thank you very much. We will open up to Public Comment. Anyone wish to comment on item number 1 . Okay. Hello i am here to support i am laura and here to support the update to the environment code. San francisco is an early adopter of buildings and lead the country towards innovative Green Buildings and the private sector to follow. Its gone on to be a success around the world and we can pride in that and this update includes important true ups to stay current and continue to lead in this area. The gold standards for Green Building have evolved so we need to keep up and pushing the envelope and San Francisco wants to be a leader in this area and we can do so with some of the amendments in the ordinance. Finally were especially pleased to support some of the key pieces that director raphael mentioned at the end, the idea of making the buildings zero net energy which is a staple that the state doesnt fully know how to execute so we can show how to do in San Francisco, doing on of sight Battery Storage and paired with Renewable Energy is important as our Energy System becomes more renewable we have to figure out to keep the electrons we generate into sun and something we recommended in a report at spur worked on over the last two years that being load at what the bay area and what cities in the area can do to help advance a fossil free region especially recommended this idea be pursued so to see it incorporated into the municipal Green Building is a great idea as well as were happy to see the ordinance include the requirement to implement the better roofs ordinance which we worked hard on over the years and pleased to see and incorporated into the sites such as the Public Safety building so in short were in favor of the update and look forward to it be implemented. Thanks. Thanks. I have two other speaker cards. [calling speaker names] so if year free feel free to come on up. Good afternoon supervisors. Rich berman part of San Francisco and i am here to express my support of the revisions. The port has worked closely with the department of of the environment in carving out some of the revisionsa and they have been a fantastic partner not only in this but establishing citywide goals and leaders for us in establishing our own Climate Action goals which are reflected in the ports strategic plan, and were very appreciative of the ability to incorporate the especially 705 and 706 sections into the port Building Code. If there are questions about that i am happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Brendon Mc Haney and i am the director of the Building Councils Northern California office and here to support the Green Buildings requirements for the municipal buildings and San Francisco has been a lead on these issues and it ensures the leadership that these projects reduce environmental impacts. Our lead Rating System is the leading choice for environmental impacts and certifying the improvements made. While this standard has been voluntary adopted in the private sector and many are in the Public Sector and governments that saw the benefits of reduced energy bills and improving environmental conditions and healthier and more productive working spaces. Local government leadership and raising the ceiling for performance has in turn raised the floor and advances in the building and environment code and for technology and market advances and the lead system is regularly updated and this would require lead verse four and the current version of best practice in building environmental performance. The state of california has expressed its intent that all buildings are zero net energy by 2030 and producing clean sources and take a step in that dreakz and mandating the standard consistent with the policy direction. With so much uncertainty at the federal level its important to push for leadership on environmental cashes and thank the city and county of San Francisco issue for the leadership and look forward to working with leaders and staff to make sure that municipal buildings meet a high level of performance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to comment on item number 1 . Yes. I am a neighborhood activist and here for the next item but i think at that point somewhere in our great bureaucracy and system somebody has to Say Something a little bit realistic about this building and what is going on with it and lets say we build a zero Net Energy Building but all of the activity that go in and owl and embedded in an environment and economy that is 70 based on fossil fuel so were increasing the fossil fuel you know, juice, you know and thats the shortcoming of its not beautiful in other words. It has a huge wart on it. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to comment on item number 1 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. Colleagues any questions or comments . If not a motion to move this item forward. So moved. Second. Okay. Motion by supervisor peskin with recommendation supervisor . Yes, sir. If we could do that and second by supervisor tang. We will take that without objection. [gavel] madam clerk will you call item 2. Item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to allow amusement arcades south of market eastern neighborhood and mixed use district except in the residential enclave districts affirming the departments department. Thank you. I am from the department. Thank you members. Last week we heard this item and asked for a continuance so the City Attorney could prepare amendments spflg to allowing the arcade use or prohibited removing the prohibition of arcade use only in the soma Light Industrial district and we have revised legislation from the City Attorney so we ask for your amendments to the original legislation that it only be limited to soma service Light Industrial and we have legislation. Do you have copies . Sorry. Do you think maybe you could walk us through the amendments here cant vote on them until understanding what they are. Yeah. Originally the legislation had the arcades prohibition deleted in the south of market and mixed use district so all of the mixed use district and each eastern neighborhood but we prepared prohibition for the south of Market Service Light Industrial district and this is an amendment of the whole so it doesnt show the original place wrist it was originally allowed. Okay. I have some cross outs and so forth. This is the amendment we can take this forward and move it forward today . Okay. So just in the title as well as it looks like 17 and 18 on page two . Correct. You have an extra period on page one at line 17. Supervisor peskin attention to detail here. John gibner and there were sections not amended in the first ordinance and removed from this version all together some changes to zoning coal tables that no longer need to be changed because

© 2025 Vimarsana