legislation. >> so moved. >> > all in favor, say i. > opposed? hearing none, this also passes. >> thank you, mr. parks your work i appreciate it. >> madam clerk, any other business before this committee? >> thank you, we're adjourned thank you very ready to begin.

good morning. today is wednesday march 29, 2017. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> vice president walker. >> here. >> commissioner gilman. >> here. >> commissioner lee. >> here. >> commissioner warshell. >> here. >> commissioner commissioner clinch and commissioner konstin are excused. we have a quorum and our next item is item 2. discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance board of supervisors file no. 170202 amending the green building code to establish requirements for installation of electric vehicle charger infrastructure in new buildings or buildings under going major alterations in addition to other requirements. >> good morning and thank you. thank you to my fellow commissioners for such a quick response in putting this

meeting together. i believe some of you commissioners were not here last week on this particular item, commissioner gilman and commissioner warshell so it's great that you're here this morning. >> >> we have in front of us a great piece of legislation that is on a fast track to hopefully be introduced to the supervisors board by april i believe, not knowing the full details which we can go into further. it was presented last week. it's obviously a really good piece of legislation. the spirit of what it's trying to do i don't think anybody could argue with it and where this whole you know electric car and charging in the private sector and going and had a great conversations with some of stakeholder between now and then and everyone agrees. we had questions and queryos the legislation that we wanted to clear up and thanks to

everybody they got together at the mayor's office and clarify the issues that we needed implemented in the legislation as it goes forward so with that i would like to turn it over to madam secretary -- whoever is -- is it barry that is going to speak first? supervisor. i know she's a busy woman so -- >> all right. thank you so much. >> good morning supervisor and welcome. >> thank you so much commissioners to have this special meeting to consider this exciting piece of legislation in san francisco. i wanted to be here to thank the mayor's office and our staff and barry and our director debbie and jesse and gilmer rodriguez and everyone who worked so hard trying to address climate change issues, sustainability and how it is that we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and i think what has been produced and that is before you is really i

think an elegant way to address this moving forward and to really push and continue to allow for the demand for electric vehicles especially from people who live in san francisco, and just by way of background how i became really interested in working on this. i live in a multi-unit building. i don't have charging infrastructure in my building and i would love to drive an electric vehicle and i think so many residents in san francisco are faced with this same exact situation but we're seeing in the market that demand is only going to increase. people are interested in riding electric vehicles and if you have infrastructure there i believe the demand will grow as well. i got many inquiries about public charging station and i am working on legislation to change over our city fleet to become also for light duty vehicles 100% electric by the year 2020 and so these are -- that will be before you as well later on

next month but i just want to say we certainly heard a lot of good feedback around this legislation, but i would say overall this is the way to go to continue to push our consumers to go towards a more -- to provide a cleaner choice when they're actually considering what type of vehicle they're going to buy. right now everyone pretty much thinks i'm going to go and buy a gasoline powered car and they don't think twice. we want to give them the opportunity to think twice over their decision and so i think that san francisco should absolutely be leading the way on this effort especially when so much innovation and technology is happening right here and developed in the bay area so again i really am just here to thank all the staff who have been working hard on this legislation and hope we can all figure out a way to ik make this feible for all parties and together we can become a more sustainable city and world thank you so much so. >> thank you supervisor.

>> good morning. tyrone and the senior adviser for mayor lee and wanted to echo the comments and in face of the announcements yesterday by the federal government and will aring back initiatives trying to clean up our emissions in the united states legislation -- smart legislation like this is even more necessary because when we look at emissions data 70% are from the major urban cities so for us we need to continue to pushing on this front and i want to thank the leadership of president mccarthy for sitting down trying to work through these issues and director and the staff for working on us trying to develop legislation that works. it may not be quite perfect but offers a road map for improvements how we get to perfect in the future and that's what we have to strive for especially when it come to the the environment and climate change and thank the staff of the environment and building inspection and supervisor tang

and everyone working on this legislation to bring it to this point so now i will turn it over to barry and go over a few of the amendments on the ordinance to get it on the record and discuss whatever questions you have so thank you. >> thank you tyrone . >> good morning members of the commission. thank you for your time. as i gave a pretty long presentation to prior meeting we will get right to the point. the prior proposal -- oh i do have a slide -- was in summary a requirement for new buildings and certain major alterations to have sufficient electric capacity to simultaneously charge electric vehicles at 20% parking spaces and in addition to run a full circuit to 10% of those spaces so that -- and would term that a turn key electric vehicle charging space because that the item is missing that is the electric vehicle

charger. the second element was a requirement that 10% of the spaces either receive the same treatment full circuit or empty conduit if necessary and the option for the empty conduit running the full length was to provide flexibility which has been a theme of the ordinance for perhaps upgrading the amperage and some vehicles might be better served by a higher one than the minimum requirement although the minimum is copattible with all vehicles today and the third is ensure that the building had enough space for the electric equipment to extend the charging up to 100% of spaces and last an observation that fast charging would be a good option to ensure there is a trade off. the revisions based on considerable stakeholder feedback in the

last week that we recommend that you consider are -- of course the same framework of ordinance but minor revisions so the same 20% electrical system capacity. the same 10% of spaces being fully turn key so a full circuit from the drkz distribution infrastructure to the parking space with the receptacle and eliminating though the second 10% that could be empty conduit and it's a straightforward set of infrastructure that could be built out periodically over the life of the building or at new construction if the parties involved determine that is necessary to meet current tenant demand. you would still -- we got more specific about that we need to ensure there are spaces specifically install additional

electrical panels and distribution infrastructure within the building as well as to have either sleeves or conduit so a sleeve just being a straightforward pen traigdz penetration where it's more difficult to run it through the wall or other partition and last dbi would maintain a list of buildings subject to these requirements and that might be as simple as we just understand what the triggers are for the ordinance and we might have straightforward online access to existing resources, but all the same we need to -- it ties into the next item that we want to make sure that the infrastructure is put to use and so we suggest adding a requirement in the environment code, not at department of building inspection's responsibility but environment to enforce the occupancy, the

owner or the homeowner's association and notifies all tenants in the building yearly there is additional capacity for electric vehicle charger and they know that the resource is available and best chance of putting to use. >> >> in addition a separate issue came up that in particularly in the valuable classive buildings and small residential in fill it can be impractical to have the transformer that maybe required in some instances located within the building and where it's required and necessary and where it is infeasible to locate the transformer in the building based on the setbacks and other

considerations then the preferable and necessary place would be i sidewalk vault. of course the department of public works has for a number of reasons want encouraged sidewalk vaults for some years and this is a building code, so the temporary fix -- the maximum that can fit in this ordinance is a note encouraging public works to support sidewalk vaults in these circumstances where it's necessary and acknowledging the importance of electric vehicle infrastructure as a policy priority for san francisco. in addition there's some discussion about what is the specific level of detail necessary for electrical engineering for the small projects? and that's a consideration of the department of building inspection that is really separate from the specifics of the ordinance but the way the ordinance was written before when it came to you encountered that discussion so what we're recommending is

deleting a few words that didn't exist -- that were amendments that are not necessarily necessary that were in the state code and reverting to this language on the screen which is construction documents and then add this phrase "anything electrical engineering related documents shall indicate" so that word "related" is intended to provide suitable flexibility for the department of building inspection to determine the appropriate level of documentation based on the project size. last -- >> just where is that? can you point to which in the legislation it's in there? >> that would be -- >> sorry to do that to you. i thought you had it in front of you. >> so the place that was -- it would be repeated by the way a few times but a good example -- >> yeah.

>> is -- 4.1 -- lines one and 22 there is a red text about 17 or more units and that was a -- that's text we're suggesting withdrawing all together. >> one more time. >> so page eight of the document lines 21 and 22 which are section 4.106.two. one which suggests moving all of the red text in that amendment on that line and going back to the original language that starts with the word "construction." construction document shall propose the ev spaces" and the reason for the change -- >> so the 17 or more is removed? >> yeah. >> and we're looking at the one that wasn't changed and shall indicate the number of spaces. >> yeah, it's referring back

to the code that didn't mention those and engineering and that's because this section deals with preparation for disabled access and so it was unnecessary to have that concept introduced in this section, and then the location to have that phrase "electrical design related documents" is in addition that is not reflected in your version but would fit on the section that begins in the last line of page ten, line 25 and mostly contained on page 11 which is in that section and multiple spaces required so that would be the opening phrase to that will be "construction document it is including electrical design and initialing documents shall indicate." >> thank you barry.

>> i have a couple more suggestions from the department of public works but i could take more questions. okay. so the department of public works has raised a couple of other questions which are relate to the intent of the ordinance is really if new motor vehicle parking is constructed we should ensure to provide electricity to those spaces and they pointed out that the language of the ordinance is potentially a little over broad that's it's ambiguous and apply to where buses are stored and other use not intended so it's the recommendation to add a definition of a light duty vehicle and a passenger vehicle based on common u.s. department of transportation definitions to the ordinance so that in that adding that definition allows references later just to clarify that the point of this is where parking is provided that that's where the electric vehicle

infrastructure needs to be. they also suggest in the non residential section, section five. 103. three. three clarifying that the applicability is to striped parking lots as well as parking garages for commercial buildings, and they suggest because the ordinance extend -- it requires all spaces to be ev spaces so to meet the definition of what an electric vehicle ready space is per state code that does include some slope requirements and they suggest adding an feasibility suggestion and limit the applicability of that slope requirement where

necessary. and that's concludes the suggested additions. >> commissioner gilman. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> yeah, if you want to ask barry if it's technical this is the man here. >> barry or trevor -- i'm not sure and is there exemption for one heard% affordable housing and we have layered costs that make it incredible expensive to build and i would extrapolate residents in the buildings and homeless and earning less than the total and buy parking and we purchase parking and they remain vacant and [inaudible] to affordable housing development. >> sure affordable housing developers were the first

stakeholders that we spoke with and you know we had a very good discussion and as well we had with the green lining institute and environment california and the california housing partnership coalition so also and of course the housing action coalition of san francisco. the response across the board was one, we went what the incremental costs would be and that has been a subject of discussion and the bottom line if you have a very small number of parking spaces the cost is quite low and we demonstrated that in a lot of detail, and where there's been contention about the ordinance is where projects might be allowed to produce a large amount of parking where costs can be very different, and in so second there was the observation that if affordable housing doesn't have this type of infrastructure then you're insuring that the

residents of those buildings would not have access to this type of clean transportation and so it actually -- all parties did agree it makes sense to apply to affordable housing and last you know the pragmatic level there is a limited amount of parking that is built at all so that's the bottom line. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> commissioner walker please. >> thank you so much for this. it's such an important part of the infrastructure that needs to be paid attention to. in looking at this, and maybe it's even a possible solution for what gait was talking about when we have for instance like a public arts fee that attaches to a building they can either put up public art or put it into a fund to fund sort of more community infrastructure around art. and it might be a good

thing to look at smaller buildings that go up and a fee that would attach or an option if a building doesn't have full access that they put into a fund that could fund maybe a public station in the same area similar to what we do with our arts requirement you know just something to look at as a funding -- for funding more public stations or allowing these private one to be used publicly for a benefit back to the owner or something, just a thought about incentives. >> there is some complexity of course to your suggestion but the spirit of is actually in here and on page 6 and continued from page five the section that just clarifies the applicability of this ordinance to both residential new construction and to major alterations lists

several exceptions, and exception number one starting on line 12 is specifically for major alt altseration alterations and evidence and present a hardship and the director would have an ability to consider appeal to provide an exemption -- sorry to reduce the number of ev spaces required so it's no longer a hardship or provide for charging elsewhere, so that discretion to negotiate is in there, but we didn't have -- without necessarily creating a large formal process. we do expect circumstances where it's needed to be fairly narrow. >> yeah. i mean it would be -- because if you have a station at a 50 unit building it serves them but not necessarily serve the broader and it might be interesting to look at that how you can broad ep the use.

>> this is also looking at one element of a much broader system so you're absolutely on point so there's a lot of effort to work toward provision and improving just ability to provide electric vehicle charging to the public at city parking garages which have been the leaders often but face challenges in expanding that infrastructure currently partly because they weren't built with this concept in mind and for other reasons as well, and then also there's robust discussion on better provision of -- more widespread and how to potentially provide electric vehicle charging at curb side or other public locations in addition to public parking garages but that's not the building code so it's would be a different -- >> got it. thank you. >> commissioner gilman. >> and i apologize again i

wasn't here at last meeting and this question and this legislation moves forward and adopted by the board of supervisors. where is the project in the planning cycle now and they filed their [inaudible] but haven't gotten it yet and how does it affect san francisco construction? >> sure so the state law is ambiguous and in the data code and for the ferment determines the publicity of all codes and that can include a application for site permit here in san francisco. >> it might be for the fellow commissioners who weren't here last time and tell us the time frame when you see it implemented would be helpful? >> most likely june given the -- provided that the commission were to make a determination today, and the board of supervisors is i believe considering the -- the land use

committee is considering reviewing it on april 10 so continues through the process into the summer. >> okay. all right. i think that's it. thank you barry for the presentation this morning. i guess we also have a representative from dpw that came out at the last moment and dari talked about was this transformer situation which you know in to give you -- why don't you introduce yourself for the record. >> good morning. edgar lop ez for public works. >> thank you mr. lopez for coming out this morning but with regard to the transformer we had talked to a lot of contractors over the last week and that was the big one that kind of -- you know resonated with this legislation, and i think it's probably a good opportunity and all we're having is a

conversation here this morning, and it's great to have somebody of high ranking of dpw and we could set the table as it were for future discussions and one of the challenges and the smaller lots in the center blocks or lots traditional to smaller developments which could be anywhere 25, 50 units depending, and there's a lot of regulation that has to be followed particularly the pg&e one is a difficult one and the green book legislation and a lot of the options that are open to them that you have to put this transformer within the building and you know it's constantly evolving in the building code and changing and the means of egress now is a lot more sophisticated and a lot of criteria to meet so a percentage of any given building must go to life safety issues and so on as it should be, so traditionally

and if not most of the times you know there isn't the feasibility to put the transformers within these projects and now i understand we have the option to apply and go through the process of dpw but it seems that sometimes the marker is you got to figure it out if you're doing a new building so we're not issuing transformers because we need to see that when we basically can and with all the codes changing and our demands being ramped it's hard to meet these criteria so the conversation would be -- particularly when trying to do the right thing here and this is definitely the way of the future, the electric vehicle, the charging and it's taking up more room and more demand in our space. we're trying to work with you to facilitate a more easier process in the application to kind of say if you're meeting these criterias and demonstrating this is one of those sites it's more automatic format that it's given rather

than let's go through the three, four month going back and forth and looking and when we know we will come to the same end result so that is some of the experiences they talked to some of the other contractors that it's already obvious that we can't achieve that goal but go through three, four months -- now i know we have a seasoned commissioner familiar with dpw policy and i am looking forward how we will weigh in and more of a conversation and everyone do the right thing and as a department make that step easier for the development community easy dwrer when designing the buildings. >> i'm sorry. commissioner lee. >> can i add one thing and what we were discussing at the last meeting and i ails did ask the -- also did ask the presenters to reach out to pg&e, the utility company because it takes their cooperation to

locate power for these projects, and sometimes they're involved in deciding where the transformers should go. it's not just public works but pg&e -- if you're in a corner lot pg&e this is where i want to bring the power into the building. that's the only location. they're stubborn about it sometimes and did we reach out to them and we need your cooperation and do negotiation and maybe a compromise on i location so that public works doesn't have to say oh no you can't put it there and pg&e says yes, you have to. what can be done? >> great question. mr. lopez. [laughter] i wouldn't be going too far. go ahead. >> well first of all thank you for the opportunity to be before you. president mccarthy you raised lots of valid points and we're supportive of the ordinance and the amendments to

the green building code and we would be happy to be participant and provide leadership and getting with the other agencies to figure out how can we be more supportive and streamline the process for these approvals when they're necessary. we realize it's -- you know sometimes might be technically infeasible to put them inside the building and we want to be helpful and part of the solution and we welcome the opportunity to work with the other agencies and the utility companies as well and happy to figure out an organized way to create a task force that specifically addresses this. >> i don't think we could ask anymore and administratively language and implemented to the code and administratively. >> yeah. >> and a certain process. did you want to -- yeah. >> tyrone, senior adviser for

mayor lee and they are aware of the ordinance and they have plans with that and this is in line with that. as far as the specific conversations and the transformers and the sizing and that conversation hasn't happen but great to bring them together with public works and have the conversation together. >> okay. i appreciate that. couldn't ask for anymore than that at this point. okay. if there is no more comment from our panel for everybody coming out this morning. we will open to public comment. is that correct madam secretary. >> yes, i have public comment on item 2. >> yeah. >> good morning commissioners, president mccarthy, director, joel [inaudible] director of sustainability solutions for the

san francisco electrical construction industry. i'm also a part time planning commissioner on thursdays. thanks for hearing my comments today. i don't want to belabor the points i made two weeks ago. i wanted to touch on a couple broad aspects of the ordinance. in spirit this is where we are moving as a city. we have our public transportation infrastructure is to the extent it can be fully electric or hybrid. we are as a city promoting less people driver cars and more walking and taking public transit, driving emissionless vehicles and proud to call this city home because of its progressiveness and this is just another way we're trying to set a trend and stand out as a city, so you know in spirit like i said the fact is less people are driving cars. more people are walking, bicycles

and public transportation. more people are driving are driving hybrids and electric vehicles. i mentioned a development two weeks ago in which regular parking spaces are vacant and not being purchased and the electric vehicle vead ready stations are sold out and purchased by people that don't have electric vehicles yet and the trend is definitely headed towards people that will have a car it's an electric vehicle so makes a lot of sense you know planning and you know looking forward and also construction wise i am not able to speak for pg&e or dpw but with construction experience i can speak to that and when you're on a job site building a building it behooves you to always put as many conduits and raceways in the slap that you can. they're

hidden. it takes less time to install them and the material itself is cheaper, so if i'm a job site i am running all the lighting and power and whatever i can in the slab in the concrete just because it's more feasible so this follows that spirit as opposed to doing things the wrong way completing a building and then coming in after the fact when people want their charging stations and say "oh we should have done this before." thank you. >> thank you commissioner. thank you for your comments and thank you for your work on this. you have been helpful in our meetings so thank you. is there anymore public comment? i see none. so madam secretary. >> then you need a motion on the item. >> commissioner walker please. >> move to approve. >> second. >> okay. there is a motion and a second. i will do a roll call vote on the item.

president mccarthy. >> yes. >> vice president walker. >> yes. >> commissioner gilman. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> and commissioner warshell. >> yes. >> okay. the motion carries unanimously. okay. our next item is adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> thank you commissioners and thank you all for coming out. >> we are now adjourned. it is 10:40 a.m.. thank you