Of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Okay. Thank you very much madam clerk temperature item no. 1 Green Building and environment codes requirements for installation of electric vehicle electrical vehicle chargers undergoing major alterations and making appropriate findings. Thank you this was sponsored by supervisor katie tang so im going to turn it over to you. Very much were here to make a simple amendment to the ev readiness we heard at land use and hearing concerns from various associations the indictment has met with organization as much as as Sf Apartment Association and well have a proposed change on page 7 starting listen 6 through 8 essentially we are exempting projects that are undertaken specifically to meet the you may have a seat. Schematic retrofit program from the ev readiness ordinance as you recall from last week the be argument made was that the city has a mandatory program and another ev ordinance on top that so there is a desire to exempt the you may have a seat. Schematic retrofit buildings from the ev readiness ordinance so i dont know if you have any questions sf environment staff are here otherwise ill make a motion avenue public commissioners comments, and questions. On number one. To supervisor tang i appreciate the fact the department of the environment undertook those meetings and appreciate this amendment i spoke a little bit based on correspondence that we received there was another point raised with regard to also exempting accessary dwelling units in the same regard not that i think will be many in the 25 thousand square feet buildings but i was wondering if there are any conversations with the department of the environment or i know those issues were raised and correspondence we received. Sure maybe ill have dbe month from the department of the environment who is part of the conversation. Good afternoon, supervisors for the record geremo department of the environment as supervisor tang mentioned at the last meeting we heard broadbased support for the ordinance but the department and the department of housing raised concerns we may be seated with them a good meeting walk through the ordinance in great detail about the drafts and the many types of buildings undergoing market octavia retrofit and some of the adus questions i think we came to a good agreement on the amendments that is before you today where arent to the schematic retrofit program looked at the projects that are call the roll. At the dbi and looked at it the definitions and the projects to see if theyll trigger the retrofits and require this out of abundance of caution we decided to go with the amendments before you where were is the accessary dwelling units again, we building that the ordinance has strong provisions in place to address many of those types of projects again, the 25 thousand square feet definition of a planned area really is extremely large as well as to have to pull you know of significant electrical Plumbing Mechanical structure we feel those provisions are Strong Enough in the existing ordinance to deal with the adus and if it does become an issue to identify the projects that trigger well send it back to the board and address those concerns thank you. So chair peskin and supervisor tang i mean based on what mr. Recordings said and as far as as we dont want to discourage them ill offer a amendment number 5 to insert after accepting Public Comment where a project is under construction of the c of planning code. Supervisor tang thank you. I do appreciate that thought but i have to stand by what mr. Rodriguez said when it comes to major renovations i forgot what page but clarified the dbi 3 out on im sorry on page 43, 3 out of 4 structural and mechanical, electrical and or Plumbing Systems so again page 4 on the bottom as mr. Rodriguez mentioned those are significant amounts where in most cases probably you wouldnt trigger an adu alteration and okay. Colleagues any further discussion okay open up for Public Comment anyone from the public wish to comment on item number one, please come forward and line up against the far wall two minutes. Good afternoon, supervisors San FranciscoApartment Association thank you very much to all of you and thanks to the department of the environment for working on this legislation with us our initial requests was to exempt seismic a exempt adus from this program we believe that getting more adus on the market is a really important policy goal of this board of supervisors and we want to make that as easy as possible so if we could exempt those that would be our preference but dont want to say that is department of the environment has not reached out to us and done their best we kind of reached this policy impasse so whatever you decide today, our policy goal to get as much schematic work done and as many adus on the market as possible thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors corey smith on behalf of the housing coalition. Actually agree with the previous speakers comments between one familyfriendly equipment and at the same time want housing with the adu protective forward with our support. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors laura on behalf of spur and to support the proposed legislation for the environment code for the vehicle charges and undergoing major alteration im not prepared to comment on the proposed thing but spur has thought we, of course, need to solve the housing but little climatic change and in the 2016 policy in the bay area we find that personal cars are the largest Green House Gas emissions in the bay area and hope by 0100 percent of cars needs to be zero Mission Vehicles and meet the goals by 2050 we need to add more charging capacity that legislation is directly in line with the spur represents that requires all residential and commercial dont know how many in the future but ev ready and at the capacity and as sf shows reducing the costs of retrofits i would prefer an earlier version of this provision like oakland 10 percent be added we offer our support including with the seismic with one request for we and others building the electrical cars should grow as cars in the future we acknowledge that is other technologies may and eclipse the electrification and the ownership could decline as shared vehicles and wireless would be available suggest a review in 4 or 5 years to see how the implementation is going and the scaling up of electrification is relevant to the adu. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is spencer represent the charge point and thank you for the opportunity in support of this legislation i want to expand our network the latter in the country the ev chasing stations in San Francisco county. The north bay have over one and thirty are corporate customers n judah the city of San Francisco im working with Property Managers and tenant that point the benefit of those charges and have high tech employers and nonprofit schools hospitals and misrepresent housing across the Diverse Group of stakeholder where retrofits how to keep down the costs and this proposed legislation is an important step and charge that it in is in support that have this wellthoughtout legislation whether we need to plan ahead should be up one in 5 vehicles are sold in the bay area u. S. Ev sales has grown every year and looking at 35 percent more than last year for easy so how to best support those electrical vehicles to do that is cost elective this legislation is welldesigned in support of that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon members of the board thank you for thank you for your time im bill on behalf of tesla to over our support of proposed ordinance for make ready charging infrastructure in order to meet the state goals over the coming years that is necessary to increase access to ev charges infrastructure both with that lafrp and more affordable long term vehicles with the model 3 well have more ev drivers detrimentally in dense urban arrests with charging infrastructure may be difficult for high cost and may put an ev out of someones reach this is a low cost solution given the analysis by pg e that demonstrate up front costs versus retrofit with the ev infrastructure thank you very much thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello chair peskin and supervisors my name is jeff the cocorridor local 350 climate nonprofit want to support in legislation and thank you to the department for working on that we do a lot of work in the bay area quality and tomorrow theyll be approving their clean air plan for 2050 to be follows free and this is a crystal piece of that and ultimately you know we civilization will end if we dont substantially river our climate issue it is penny wise and pound foolish to be quickly over one we know well need 100 percent electrification and support the comments there is a place for Technology Review at a time to make sure were not spending money on most that ineffective we are keeping up with the new itself trend but ultimately make sure that every parking space in the city eventually can priority 40 provide for nonprofit transportation that needs to startle now, when industry will be more expensive want to flag that i mentioned the bay area of Quality Management theyll be looking at providing funding best practices, etc. On ev charging and could spread legislation like this around the region lastly sfaep sonoma has instituted a program for the adoption if cleanpowersf didnt meet those charges. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello supervisors my name is stacey im the ceo of the power we are a charging Service Providers to permeate dwellers i think the points that were made by the prior commenters are on point ill highlight as well that there is a social balance social justice for charging for apartment dwellers currently according to the cc m it that administrators the Ev Rebate Program 95 percent of all vehicles that are influencing in have been sold to singlefamily homeowners yet San Francisco has 2 3rds of the population that rents ios renters would like to have charges and electrical vehicles have been denied federal rebates and state rebates and to the salesforce that electrical vehicles what provide to the ownership and as a result that is impoverishing the community by denying the access of those savings so keep in mind as much as possible providing assess for renters a significant benefit on multiple levels thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anyone else wish to speak on number one, feel free to line up on the screen side of the room. Im here representing ever charge were also in support of this legislation i would like to point out that current a 10 to one ev charges to electrical vehicles stations in the city this needs to change for the electrical vehicles to ton to grow and 90 percent of ev drivers peace officer to charge at work or home or both are available this legislation absolutely meets that goal and i very much hope you put it forward thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi laura clark action i wanted that remind everyone this is maybe okay legislation but the most powerful thing to do to make sure that we are buildings Green Community to build dense urban refill that is building more housing this may increase the costs of building housing thank you. Thank you anyone from the public wish to comment in Public Comment okay seeing none, Public Comment is closed. For number one supervisor tang. Thank you very much thank you for your comments i will work with it sf environment in terms of reevaluating whatever technology is on the market absolutely that is crucial and so you have my commitment to continue to do and sf environment and i will say, i would proposes the amendment to exempt the Seismic Retrofit Program in selfill not include adus we already have quite a high threshold that triggers a major alteration and on top that we want to currently many people to be able to drive ev as possible and capturing the window of time less expensive to be able to install the infrastructure rather than going back to Old Buildings to install the charges i would like to make a motion to adopt the motion on page 7 lines 7 and 8. Supervisor tang made a motion and supervisor peskin on that motion without objection. So were clear first of all, thank you to the department of the environment and supervisor tang and the mayor for putting this forward it is very good legislation i think that the amendment that we are i think all in agreement is about balancing competing needs to very important Public Policy about seismic safeties and climatic change i think that number 5 fails in the same vein not used much but take advantage in new construction in most case but to the extended we have a priority of building adus id like to have a vote on that one sentence amended i offered number 5 under the number 4, ill prepared to take without objection. First of all, supervisor tang emotion and supervisor peskin seconded by without objection and supervisor peskin you want to make a motion. Yeah. I made the motion i dont think in committee we need to second but vote on that. Okay roll call vote on supervisor peskin motion. On the amendment by supervisor peskin supervisor tang no supervisor peskin supervisor farrell nope. There are 2 one i and one no im sure that is part of discussion in a few minutes and i want to thank commissioner tang and the dipt for working on this issue it is awesome legislation about a year since electrical vehicles and an awesome experience but feel it is for the right reasons so the more we deal with legislation i want to thank and supervisor tang for this issue so with that, the underlying item a roll call vote. Supervisor peskin a roll call vote. Okay motion by supervisor tang. Through the chair with a positive recommendation as amended and a committee report. Without objection. All right. Item no. 2 urging the evaluation and allocation of properties for urban agriculture. The properties fushlg. It was sponsored by supervisor ronen and supervisor tang so supervisor ronen. Thank you colleagues today im proud to assume the officeship of a resolution together with supervisor tang on urban Agriculture Supervisor avalos the former district 11 supervisor introduced this on the feed of the closure of the city garden in district 11 last december that was a beloved neighborhood gardener for urban agriculture this resolution reaffirms San Franciscos commitment to allocate properties for urban agriculture so that hopefully in the misfortune we can recreate the magic of little city garden without shutting down in 2009 San Francisco made a commitment to prioritize un and local Food Productions from mayor gavin newsom the healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco in 2011, the city demonstrated further commitment by administrative review the planning code to allow United States umg in all zones throughout the city as recently as 2014 our city created the first urban agriculture incentive zone by implementing the Assembly Bill that loud the city to evaluate sites including surplus city sites thats been 3 years and not yet secured the land for the if you will indulge me projects that what provide Educational Opportunity for children and families and adults and the chance to grow fruits and vegetables here within the city i understand that there are questions about competing priorities for land use given our huge affordability and hicks housing crisis in the city certainly building housing is a top priority housing is a top priority we have to balance our Housing Development in this city where some agricultural space for heath fresh foods for the residents and connection and for the unification in neighborhoods that resolution calls the assessment of a limited number of suitable sites for the Development Challenges have been rendered vacate and underused foresight from flooding and limited egress that have a history of aulgz usage and sites identified by the Community Groups to be desirable for architectural i made in the portal neighborhood which is known and has been declared the Garden District of San Francisco ways in the past century that was a place for new immigrants to establish themselves by growing flowers and other things geographically and hiv that has perfect weather for the city for the implementations of a urban agriculture project as a contribute to the neighborhood groups i hope this resolution is a step to accomplishing that goal and the urban agriculture projects are valuable assets they help to galvanize the neighborhood and provide hands on education about produce and preservation and understanding the larger agricultural system long use tenure has proven an important thing as addressed by the Assembly Bill in 2014 if we want want this to be a permanent fixer for San FranciscoEducational Opportunities we need to forge a pathway for urban agriculture projects to assess outside of temporary land use spaces before i open up to commissioner tang and my colleagues in Public Comment i wanted to give a huge thanks from supervisor avalos for beginning this to kate from the little city gardens youll hear from shortly and angelian from the urban Agriculture Alliance and others that or the cofounder the project and eli from spur and karen from the sf cause for working with former