increases that will be effectively double our rent over the course of this lease with kilroy. we recognize that, and that's a sacrifice that we will do. so obviously it's long-term viability and sustainability of the market. and we've made some good progress. we are not quite there yet. we really appreciate the support in getting us over the finish line with kilroy. and that's it. thank you for your support. >> thank you, michael. next speaker, please. my name is rob with floral company. we celebrated our 113th year of business this year. my father started selling flowers on the streets of san francisco before there was a flower market. when the flower market was established in 1912, he was one of the founders of it. at that time, the flower growers owned the market and the flower growers were also the tenants. so the at the nans and landlord, their interests were aligned.

so today we have a different situation. we have a situation where the landlord and tenants are not the same people or even the same company. so we face the difficult challenge of trying to find a solution to continue a great institution, the flower market, even though there are different interests between the two parties. that being said, we made tremendous progress by resolving the financial terms and the agreement between kilroy, the flower market and the tenants. they are mostly finished, which i'm happy to say. however, we are not near closure with respect to the design of the physical market. it has always been the understanding by the flower market and by the tenants that one of the community benefits that would come with the project was the continuation of the flower market and as john kilroy himself told us, we would have a world class flower market. but as of today, the documents defining the flower market are

not yet anywhere near the point where the city ends up with a world class flower market. the detail in these documents has yet to be agreed on, and the process for having kilroy and the tenants be able to agree on them has not yet been defined. those are important because otherwise how can how can city f identify and resolve the conflicts that we have? so as michael said, we've made progress. we've solved the economic issues, but we really need these agreements to be -- [off mic] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon chair peskin and supervisors. my flame is cole brenen. i'm with -- my name is cole

brenen. i'm with walk san francisco. i'm here to voice our support for the flower mart project. over the past 12 months, walk sf has worked with kilroy realty. all three streets surrounding the project site are on the high injury network, the streets most likely to get san franciscans injured or killed. throughout the design process, kilroy has been receptive to our feedback and collaborative about finding solutions. with more people planning to be walking here than ever before as directed by the central soma plan, it is critical every aspect of the design emphasizes safety for people walking. kilroy's flower mart plan includes wider sidewalks, beautiful places for people to rest and thoughtfully designed pedestrian only paths. it also includes safety

improvements such as new mid-block crossings and reduced crossing distances through travel-lane reduction afforded by new street designs. these improvements made this a big win for safer, easier walking. flower mart will bring many new walk in trips to this neighborhood and walk sf is excited for this project to bring a better walking experience on this walk. we support the new flower mart and we hope for your approval as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is laura. i'm a floral designer in san francisco. i've had my own business here for 25 years. and i'm here to represent the stakeholders in this whole project who don't have an actual seat at the table, namely the end users of the san francisco flower market. i have petitions that were

signed. i believe they were scanned into your files, just representing some of the many badge holders, people who have access to the market. and we are the people who absolutely cannot do our jobs without a functioning, modern, accessible flower market. we are the people who worked on thanksgiving while you were enjoying your turkey with your families, to put up the christmas decorations you saw when you stepped out the door on friday morning after thanksgiving. we are the people who were there to create the flower arrangements for every wedding, bar mitzvah, church, cultural event and social event in the city. and we are not people with expensive suits or fancy lawyers or a lot of political clout. but we are small business owners. we are job creators. we are taxpayers. and we are artisans who make san

francisco beautiful. and we ask that whatever consideration you give to this project you keep in mind that without flower market, we close our doors. so please create something that works for all of us for the future. thank you so much. >> thank you. and i agree with everything that you said except for that you said you do not have political clout. you do have political clout. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is rochelle. i'm with the bay area council. we represent civic minded business leaders striving to make the bay area the best place to live and work. the flower mart will create thousands of jobs, both permanent and temporary construction jobs. it will also dedicate a parcel of land for affordable housing that we desperately need in san francisco. as well as generating $230 million in impact fees,

including $110 million for that affordable housing which we need so badly. this is a great project that will not only spur economic development and vie it will cree funding for affordable housing. in addition to san francisco's critical housing shortage, the city is experiencing a shortage of office space, resulting in job and revenue losses for the city. the bay area council supports this important project that will bring significant resources to the city and benefit local residents, and we ask yore your aye vote to move this project through today. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello. my name is chris. i'm with 350sf and the sf climate emergency coalition. i wantedd to take this opportunity to strongly encourage the developer and property owner to consider not building this building with new natural gas infrastructure. as we know, we are in a major

climate emergency right now, methane is responsible for more than a third of our emissions in san francisco. and we know we need to retrofit at at least a rate of three percent per year. electric design is cheaper and helps property owner avoid stranded assets. the civic gas and electric company encourages the halting of new natural gas infrastructure. they prefer to not have to maintain this dangerous infrastructure. and it doesn't cut it anymore in 2019. as the developer moves forward to apply for a building permit, i encourage the city to work with them to implement all electric designs. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> we didn't plan it this way. san francisco electrical construction industry. he had great comments. from what i've read, kilroy is one of the better developers in terms of carbon neutrality.

one of their sustainability directors has been interviewed and spoken extensively about it in l.a. and hopefully they bring it here. i'm here on behalf of the san francisco electrical construction organization. we employ thousands of workers. and paulson spoke about the building trade support and where we echo that. but i want to make sure that you guys were all aware that it isn't just about putting up this building of the men and women who are going to be responsible or employed in putting up this building but so much of the work that our members do happens after these buildings are up and running. so these 180 buildings provide jobs for thousands of blue collar electricians, security guards, janitors, carpenters. as we continue to add office space, and as we do commercial development, keep in mind that

their a tremendous economic resource for working class and blue collar people. we are glad to see this project moving forward. kilroy has been working with the building trade since the beginning and with the electrical since century since the beginning. glad to see the issues are being resolved, and we are looking forward to seeing this get built. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the cultural heritage district. the flower mart agreed to work to build a gateway marker as part of the community infrastructure obligations. filipinos have been in soma for over 100 years. despite the designation of the cultural district, there are no public monuments recognizing our community. last year, the national endowment for the arts selected filipinos to create a strategic plan and portfolio for signage

to raise the visibility of the cultural district. sixth street has been identified as a key corridor to have a welcome gateway especially with an entrance and exit at the proximity of the flower market. we appreciate this development agreement is the first major commitment about by the city and also a developer to create a gateway. and we look forward to working with the folks at kilroy to be able to design this. we would like to acknowledge the land dedication for affordable housing one block away from the project. and we hope that can build 100 units of affordable housing. lastly, we really appreciate the work of the different parties to preserve the working class jobs and the small businesses of the flower mart. good luck in the next few days

in hammering out the details. >> thank you. before i call on the last speaker, let me, one, say that she spoke originally at my request so she can speak again now at public comment. but i really want to thank all the parties, and particularly ms. topia for working everybody's behind off to get this to a place of yes. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you. i just wanted to respond to the question that supervisor safai. >> safai. >> -- asked earlier. the flower market was, my understanding, i think it was said here multiple times this afternoon, was the key benefit to this project. and because of that, i would like to point out that we need an objective benchmark to set a

standard for building out this market. if we don't have an objective standard, there is no benchmark to hold the parties accountable for building what is required to have a functional flower market for our vendors and our customers. hence that's why i mentioned the new garden in london, and that is the benchmark of a building that we would like to use as the industry standard. also the initial deal with the flower market that was struck in 2014 was a 35-year lease. this deal that we have right now is basically a 25-year lease. year 26, it becomes completely unaffordable for the flower vendors. i also want to point out that in year five, the vendors rent jumps 50 percent. so these small business owners have -- they are aware of this.

they know this is part of the deal that's on the table right now, and they are accepting that as a condition to move forward and hopefully survive this transition. >> thank you for putting those things on the record. and are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item 7 and/or 8? seeing none, we'll close public comment. there are a lot of moving pieces to this. i want to thank supervisor haney. i want to thank his predecessor supervisor kim. i want to thank our recorder ms. carmen chiu who is working on ways to reduce some of the property tax liability to accommodate the flower market and their 50 some odd vendors. if there is no objection from my one remaining colleague on this panel, and i would like to welcome supervisor mar to the chambers, what i would like to do is propose that we send this to the full board of supervisors

without recommendation. that will give -- oh, supervisor safai is back. that will give you another week to work through a bunch of the details. [please stand by]

-- submitting to the clerk for the committee to accept. and also amendments to the ordinance reflecting those changes to the d.a. >> right, my bad. so there's a motion to amend. can we take that motion without objection? and we will do that and then we will send the items as amended to the full board without recommendation. going once. done. madam clerk, read item number 3. >> clerk: modifying the zoning controls in resolution 43019 which require a conditional use authorization or residential care facilities to clarify that those interim zoning controls apply to certain residential care facilities, including

facilities lacking required permits, and affirming the appropriate findings. >> supervisor mandelman, thank you for your patience. >> thank you, chair peskin and colleagues. you may recall that back in october this board adopted a resolution establishing interim zoning controls to -- and in response to the loss of the residential care facilities over a number of years and the concern that we would continue to lose them. and so these interim zoning controls required a conditional use authorization to the residential care facility to another use. since adoption of that resolution as we have seen some additional projects coming down the line where folks are, in fact, trying to go out of the rcfe, or r.c.f. business, it has become clear to the departments tasked with implementing these controls that it would be useful to further define what residential care facilities are and specifically to clarify that

this resolution, these controls and requirements for a conditional-use authorization, would apply whether or not the residential care facility in question was established with or without -- with benefit of permits. so that's what this resolution is about. and i hope that as we passed the last one unanimously that the committee would forward this with full adoption. >> any members of the public to speak on item number 3 in seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i just want to have my name added as a co-sponsor this legislation, madam clerk. and to say really quickly a lot of these facilities are in my district. and because of the pressures that have been born by extremely hot housing market there's been a lot of turnover, a lot of the families that had operated them for a long time had decided not

to. i think that is one of the pieces of the conversation, not just about conditional use, but also about the reimbursement rate and ensuring that the operators have enough money to survive. i know that there's been ongoing conversation. so thank you, supervisor mandelman for your leadership on this. just want to say really strongly that we do support ensuring that these operators are reimbursed at a higher rate. and that we're thinking as creatively as we can about these long-term care facilities in all different aspects of long-term care. whether it's sub-acute and others. it's a much-needed service, and the idea that the pressure is being born to turn these into non-nursing home facilities, we want to work with the operators to ensure that they survive, and then actually get those numbers back up. >> thank you, supervisors. so with those comments and seeing no public comment, if one of you would like to make a motion to send item 3 to the full board with recommendation. we will do that without

objection. >> clerk: as a committee report? >> as a committee report. and please read the next item. >> clerk: item for ordinance amending the administrative code to require an annual report analyzing the fit between housing needs associated with job growth by wages in san francisco and housing production by affordability. >> and we are joined by supervisor mar on this item that is co-sponsed by supervisors haney and fewer and we an analyst report. supervisor mar, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, for this opportunity to hear this legislation today. which will require the planning department to produce an annual jobs housing report providing new data and analysis to inform our city's efforts to truly address the housing affordability crisis in a more thoughtful, strategic and impactful way. the annual jobs housing fit report will analyze the

alignment or the misalignment between job growth by wage level in housing production by affordability level. planning commissioners have been asking for this data for years. so i commissioned the first ever jobs housing f.i.t. report which was released by the budget and legislative analyst in october. this initial report provides new insight into our housing crisis and highlights an extreme imbalance in san francisco's jobs housing fit. i would like to share several key findings from the report. first, during the tech-driven economic boom over the last decade, job growth has far outpaced housing production, with 8.5 new jobs for every new housing unit produced. secondly, even though we have created an equal number of low-wage and high-wage jobs during this boom period, 75% of housing produced have been market rate units, mostly luxury condos. while only 25% of units produced have been affordable to low and

moderate income households. thirdly, while the number of high-income households increased by 44% during this period, low-income households declined by one-quarter in our city with working-class families displaced and low and moderate-income workers forced to make longer and longer commutes on gridlocked freeways. and, finally, looking ahead the initial jobs report found that we need to build 18,000 affordable units for low-to-moderate income households while we have overentitled for other households through 2026. so in short, the housing affordability crisis is worsening. the status quo is not working. and we are failing miserably at meeting the housing needs of low to moderate income workies and their families. far too much focus has been paid to simplistically increasing the

housing supply generally, i.e., build, baby build, without considering who we are building for. there's not enough attention paid to how rapid and uneven job growth drives the housing demand and the affordability crisis. we need jobs housing f.i.t. data to ensure that the housing that is approved and built in the future more directly addresses the housing needs of our workers and the communities, rather than only the financial bottom line of private developers. we also need housing -- jobs house fit data every time that the planning commission and the board of supervisors consider a major development project or area plan. and it's time that we faced the data when making economic and policy -- economic, policy and land-use decisions and it's time to confront the housing and other impacts of these decisions on low-to-moderate wage workers and families. so, colleagues, if you have any questions about the b.l.a.

report and how the planning department should have the reporting, fred is here and available to answer questions. i'd like to acknowledge my co-sponsors, supervisors haney, and fewer and safai and the staff and the labor advocates who we have worked with on this, including the council of community housing organizations and jobs with justice. so, thank you, colleagues. i urge you to support the report legislation today and move it forward to the full board as a committee report. >> thank you, supervisor. so would you like to say any words? unless there's questions? >> okay, answer questions. >> any members of the public to comment on this item, please come forward.

>> i am with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods here on my own behalf. i would like to thank supervisor mar for commissioning the initial report for the jobs housing fit. it's an important tool in understanding these issues and resolving them. making the jobs housing fit report an annual requirement is critical to keeping the momentum going. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> supervisors, i'm with the council for community housing organizations. we are super excited to be here supporting this legislation. thank you, supervisor mar, for this great work. we have for many years been hearing about the imbalance between jobs growth and housing, but very little about the actual wages of workers, their actual needs and the affordability of housing that needs to be created for those workers. this is the kind of information that every decisionmaker should

have in front of them when they are looking at questions such as the previous item that y'all were discussing around the flower mart development, for example. what are the jobs being created? who's going to benefit? and how are we going to house those workers? this legislation will establish reporting requirements, not just for us to look back at what's happened, but us to look forward. especially every time that we are looking at large master plan developments to really understand the implications and to really plan for policy to house our workers. thank you very much. please support this legislation. >> hi, everyone. my name is mya tucloth and with the support of supervisor mar's legislation -- or to make this jobs housing fit report a

requirement on an annual basis. san francisco needs more data-driven understandings of where we are, especially of our workforce and their housing needs. beyond just anecdotes, to create a substantive policy solutions. this annual jobs housing fit legislation will identify what housing affordability levels workers need to actually meet them where they're at in terms of wages. we need jobs housing fit data like my colleagues said every time that the planning commission and the board of supervisors consider a major development project or a plan. thank you again supervisor mar and his legislative aide, daisye kwan for your work and leadership on this critical piece of legislation. thank you. and i hope that all of you will

support this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is kong fan, with jobs for justice, the coalition of the labor community organizations in the city. and i'm here to support the jobbingjobshousing fit. one of the phrases that we hear over and over again is that we need to build, and build and build and it's almost like a magic spell, right? we say this enough and we'll solve the housing crisis. but before we fall under that spell we actually need to pause and to think about who are we building for. and for the first time this jobs housing report finally hospitals us to answer that key question. and the report that supervisor mar and the b.l.a. released showed us that low-wage workers are increasing almost as much as high-wage workers. we think of this boom and we think of a tech boom but that tech boom involves the janitors

who clean those buildings and the restaurant workers who feed those folks. so we need to look at what is happening with low-wage workers. when the "today show" did a show, there was a lot about super commuters and the explosion of super commuters and people traveling over an hour and a half or two hours for work. we easily found so many workers in our coalition who were super commuters. there was one woman who traveled three hours -- three hours one way from stockton so she could have a good job in san francisco but had to travel three hours. this jobs housing mismatch has a real cost and it's the cost to people like bernadette. so this is why i'm here, our coalition is in full support, because we need this report. we need this data-driven approach to really fixing our housing crisis. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cynthia gomez, our union

represents the dishwashers and food service workers at the airport as well as people who are able to -- after much struggle and fight -- are able to afford to earn a living wage and to be able to afford something a sustainable lifestyle in this expensive city, which is no small feat. and we applaud the leadership of supervisor mar and co-sponsors in asking for this kind of data. as a research analyst i appreciate the extended use of data in making decisions and really asking the hard questions. how do we fix the problem where housing is being overproduced for people who are in the least need of it and being drastically underproduced for people who are in the greatest need of it? we have numbers who come from sacramento to work at s.f.o. and we had a worker who testified in this chamber about living in watsonville and coming in every day to work in san francisco. and it is that burden that is

overwhelmingly falling on the people who are already struggling to be able to afford it. the super commuter burden is not just born by wealthy and higher-earning individuals, it's born by the lowest wage individuals. and this kind of data is going to be tremendously useful decision-by-decision, year-by-year, project-by-project in evaluating the fit of the needs generated by this project and how will the city be positioned or not positioned to meet those need when's it comes to housing. so i support this legislation this afternoon. thank you. >> thank you, miss gomez. miss ford? >> hi, i'm miss ford. [laughter] i'm here actually with jobs for justice. and even though the labor council that i work with has not taken an official position i talk to most labor leaders and they support this. so i just want to say data -- i'm getting to be a bit of a geek in my old age and i love data. data, data, data.

people are always speaking of working families and working people and they think they know. they think they know what we want when they say nurses or teachers. but they don't know, because we are having to find that out ourselves. this will begin the discussion that will actually show us who is living here, who is working here and what -- what we can expect in terms of housing production. i just want to mention that the labor council itself is doing an internal study of labor unions and members. and the relevant data that together with the labor council and this report we will absolutely be able to effectively decide on what kind of housing that we need. so i'd like to thank supervisor gordon for this leadership. when i first heard about it i thought how boring, it's a study, what is it going to build? but it will give us the tools that we need in order to push the kind of housing for all of us. in this initial study that we're beginning to do -- and we have study bodstudied about 25% of tn

members already, 91% of the union members, high and low wage, are all eligible for certain affordable housing subsidies. so that's the truth and that's the need. and we would all like to stay and live in this city. thank you so much. >> thank you, miss ford. and supervisor gordon appreciates that. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, supervisors, corey smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition. always enthusiastic when we have additional facts and additional data to be fueling and informing our decisionmaking. you know, this isn't something that we are -- we're very aware this is not something that is a san francisco problem, this is a bay area regional problem. so when you have cities that are creating a massive number of jobs, knowing that, to be honest, that san francisco is one, if not the coolest place to live in the bay area, well, those people will want to work and live here. so understanding how this works on a regional scale i think is

really important. we also want to really reiterate that we fundamentally believe that the solutions to our affordability and displacement crisis is not to reduce the number of jobs. it is to create a number of homes that we need in order for people to live here. we know that the significant majority, more than 70% of the low-income residents live in market-rate housing. and producing more market-rate housing decreases the number of evictions of low-income californians. and we have data that tells us our answer is more housing and improving our infrastructure to make sure that we can accommodate that growth that we need. and it is continuing to create good jobs. again, at varying income levels. to make sure that we can have the socioeconomically diverse and culturally diverse city that we all want. so something like this we feel that we have a little bit more of the target and i'm sure that we'll have details and policy differences on how to get there, but more information is always good.

and so we appreciate the supervisors' leadership on bringing that information to light. thank you. >> thank you, sir. and while i disagree with your contention, i appreciate your support. are there any questions for mr. brosseau? >> not really -- >> are there any questions for the sponsors some supervisor haney. >> thank you, chair peskin and thank you supervisor mar for your leadership on this. as you know this was the -- the report that you had done was a huge -- you know, a benefit for our understanding of the crisis that we're facing and also some of the steps that we needed to take from a policy perspective. in terms of what the report would -- or what this would require in terms of reporting, would there be any piece of this that is actually recommending certain actions or responses or

policy changes to address what i assume would most cases be a gap that we want to address? is that also a piece of this? or is it more kind of the information that we would then use and determine ourselves what needs to be done? >> supervisor mar? >> yeah, thanks for the question. right now the way that the legislation is drafted, the report would mainly be data, and analysis sort of objective -- objectively provided. kind of like -- similar to the other -- other reports that the planning department already produces. the housing balance report, and also the housing pipeline report. so right now it's not going to include any policy recommendations. we as a board, you know, are actively engaged in thinking about and acting on. >> mmm, got it.

one thing that i did want to flag around the -- the housing balance report that we received is as a part of that legislation -- or supposed to also be recommendations or a plan that's put forward as to how we're going to actually meet our goals and address some of the, you know, the goals that we have set around affordable housing and the gaps there. and often when we receive that report we don't receive that plan or those recommendations. so also just want to flag that as something that maybe should be tied to this in some way, that is one place where, you know, from the mayor's office of housing and from the planning department, i would hope that we would receive on a more regular basis sort of highwa how we're o address the gaps of meeting our overall housing needs. especially as it relates to affordable housing and goals

there. >> with all due respect to my colleague from district six, that's what we get the big bucks for. we know what the solutions are. they may be politically unpalatable, but with that public comment is closed. supervisor mar, thank you for bringing this to us. can we send this to the full board as a committee report with recommendation? seeing no objection that is the motion and the order. madam clerk, read items 5 and 6 together. thank you, fred. >> clerk: item 5 is an ordnan amending the environment code to require new construction and major renovations of municipal buildings to exclude natural gas and include exclusively all-electric energy sources and affirming the appropriate findings. and item number 6 is an ordinance amending the green building code to establish energy performance requirements for certain new building construction, adopting environmental findings, and

directing the clerk of the board to forward the ordinance to state agencies as required. >> supervisor mandelman, thank you for continuing to be here. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin. today i'm asking for your support for these two ordinances that will help to achieve our emission reductions and climate action goals. the first ordinance will ban the use of natural gas in the construction of new municipal buildings. you may recall that supervisor brown has been the -- has been the lead on this and is passing it off to supervisor stefani, but the supervisor is not able to be here today, unfortunately. and the second item to incentivize all electric buildings and disincentivize natural gas in new construction. the electric preferred -- the second of those items, the electric preferred legislation, which i have offered, will update the building code to favor the design and construction of all zero-emission buildings by

having higher requirements for buildings with natural gas. debbie rafael, i keep doing that, the director of the department of the environment, will provide a presentation on both ordinances but i want to apply a bit of context first. this past july, there was a report on our city's carbon emissions focus 2030, a pathway to net zero emissions, that showed that our building stock is the biggest contributor to the carbon footprint. and this legislation is -- well, two pieces of legislation -- are part of a three-step effort where we're envisioning to rein in emissions. and the first is the municipal building natural gas ban. and the second is the ordinance which i have offered. and, third, we hope that coming early next year will be a ban on these natural gas and all-new construction. in january, the department of the environment and we are looking to convene a series of meetings over probably several months with labor leaders and environment advocates and

developers and city agencies to craft a natural gas ban to work for san francisco. and our shared goal is to introduce legislation to ban natural gas some time in the spring of 2020. of course we can't stop there. there will be a further step which will be addressing the retrofitting of existing buildings. what we do here in san francisco could be a model for cities throughout the world, we can address our climate crisis. and i ask for your support on these two ordinances so that we can continue that work. i do have a very minor amendment on the electric preferred legislation on page 3, line 4-5, the p.u.c., i believe, has asked that we strike "sewer system" and replace it with "its infrastructure," recognizing the reality that climate change will have wide ranging impacts and the updates line that is going to reflect that reality. in addition, i am asking that

this committee duplicate this file. there are many in the -- or some in the advocacy community who would like to make -- >> is this file or files? we're doing electric preferred? >> there may be additional changes that folks are interested in making to this soon. that said, we think that it's imperative to get what we have passed as soon as possible to align with our 2020 building code, so we'd like to move that forward and then have conversations with the advocacy community. but in the context of the ban, how we want to handle some of the other issues that have come up. in closing, i want to thank the department of the environment, including director rafal, and charles sheahan, and cindy comerford, and tyrone from the mayor's office and kyle feely in my office and i want to thank our climate advocates for consistently and persistently demanding action, holding us

accountable and making sure that we rein in our emissions and pull in our carbon footprint. >> thank you, supervisor. miss rafael, is it the department of the environment or s.f. environment? >> that is the hardest question that i'll ever have to answer. it's your choice. >> i will go with the department. >> i would too. i prefer that. actually, i have always preferred that. okay. so if i could have the slides. i want to start by thanking the supervisor for his leadership on moving us forward through the 2030 report. and now this first of a set of policies that will be coming before the board to take action on climate change. i want to also thank supervisor brown for her work on the municipal side and the supervisor stefani for willing to step up and get us over the finish line. i would like as you did

supervisor mandelman, to thank my staff for their perseverance and their tenacity. and i also want to really thank the building inspection commission and the staff at the department of building inspection. every three years they go through this trauma of updating our building code. and we're always there asking them to go further. and this is an example of that kind of partnership. and they were with us all the way. and, finally, i do want to thank the community members who showed up today and who have been showing up for us for months working on this. >> and, debbie, i do not in any way want to be disrespectful but less is more. >> got it. and i have nine slides and i will go as fast as i can. you know the context. here's the slide that keeps me up at night that tells me where our emissions are coming from. and you can see that the built environment has 44% of them, and the lion's share of that is natural gas. and natural gas impacts -- this is really important to remember

-- as we are taking on the natural gas industry, it's threefold. we have climate impacts, methane is 86 times more potent than co2. and we have explosions happening not only in san bruno but in the streets of san francisco as well. and health impacts because it's not just the extraction of natural gas, but it's also every time that you turn on your stove, nitrogen dioxide is coming out and that is a potent toxic element that has respiratory impacts. (please stand by)

commission that it is cost effective. we do not have the same restrictions on ourselves in chapter 7 of the environment code. so before you is, in blue, that is what we are calling the reach code, which is for private sector construction, commercial, multifamily and single family. there you may build, you may put in natural gas if you really want to, but if you do you are going toff more efficient

buildings to -- going to have to have more efficient buildings. all new construction as well as major renovations will be all electric. we are not alone. this image is important because it is showing the complexity of the landscape in cities across california. you see a range of choices that cities are making. what becomes important for the san francisco context is the cities that are generally banning natural gas today are doing so because their primary building type is low risees residential. 97 percent of our building is high-rise residential and commercial so we need to figure out how we do it. it's not a whether conversation, it's a how. local examples -- >> respectfully, if you can -- >> too much? >> yeah, too much. >> here's great examples in haney's district and others for the supervisors and our next steps are to look at what we need to do so go further to work

with communities and make sure that labor is involved to make sure that equity and affordability are always at the forefront. >> thank you. are there members of the public who would like to speak on items 5 or 6? if you would like to come forward. i have a number of speaker cards starting with tom, dr. margin, elaina. thank you for your patience. i'll continue with more speaker cards. >> thank you. i'm here on behalf of livable city to express our support for these amendments to the green building code and the city administrative code. we think these are going to be great ways to make sure that as new buildings are built, there is energy efficient, as green as we can make them. there are some things we would love to see this board go further on and look at. one is i think in all of these

discussions about climate, we don't really look at embodied energy. we are just looking at the energy that takes to operate things, our transportation system or buildings. but the environmental impact of retrofitting an existing building to a green building standard versus building a new building to that identical standard, those are different impacts. the new construction is much more impactful. similarly, running a tesla with solar panels, you can see it's a green way but the impacts are much higher than walking or cycling because you've got all the energy, the carbon, all those impacts that go into building the car, building the garage, et cetera. so we hope that as we are looking at ways to make greener buildings, we will look at incentives to where existing buildings are found to retain those. the other thing we hope you will look at is some policies that will get buildings retrofitted. i'm a renter.

our economic interests run counter to our landlords. our landlords own the infrastructure, our gas heater, gas stove, and we pay the utility bills. if we need to find ways to get all of these buildings retrofitted, because the economic incentive that exists to go more efficient doesn't exist in the landlord/tenant relationships so either a grants and loans program where there are requirements like we've done with seismic, we need to figure out to get the huge number of existing buildings retrofitted so they are energy efficient. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. if i have not called your name, you are already lined up so you won't bother. >> hi. i'm a member of 350 san francisco, 350 bay area and the san francisco climate emergency coalition. i've lived in the mission for 45 plus years. for 25 years, i worked on

municipal building projects in san francisco and berkeley. and i worked on what we used to call the new main library and branch libraries project. so i don't know if any of you know. i know debra raphael wipes up in the middle of the night and worries about our near future and will we be able to act fast enough to save ourselves and our planet but you supervisors are in a position to help to avert our climate emergency. and i applaud you and particularly supervisor mandelman for the proposed ban on natural gas in new municipal buildings. this is a good, although it's a small first step. and we must follow this up with a ban on natural gas in all new buildings in san francisco as soon as possible. we are looking forward to working with you on this immediately. in the meantime, until that

legislation is presented and passed, we would like to see an electric ready reach code so that the projects that are online, ready to go before the ban comes up, we'll have some way of quickly switching fuels to electric instead of gas, once they are built, rather than going through the rather ugly retrofit project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. casey from the demonstration gardens and the climate reality action group. we are attuned in deficits to access to affordable house. as we move to build housing for our needs, these two proposed

sets of legislation to the land use code to incentivize electrification versus natural gas in public buildings is a good step toward a more accurate cost model that takes into account the actual expenses to climate, public health and equity that every new natural gas construction project represents. i support these amendments and encourage that they be applied and early next year, let's get going with more -- the more affirmative ban on natural gas in new buildings to realize our city's aspirations to be the greenest possible. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jeff. i've been a registered mechanical professional engineer in california for the last 34

years. i have a consultant firm. we have offices in san francisco, sacramento and santa rosa. and i'm here to represent the views of many leading architectural engineering firms in the bay area. i'm here to support the electrification issue. we need to do it as soon as you can. there's no waiting and being cautious, we need to jump into it right away. industry is ready for this. there are proven products available, heat pumps, induction cook tops, heat pump water heaters. the technology is there, it's reliable, affordable, and we've done many successful projects over the last few years, if not more, even starting with geothermal projects which are typically all electric anyway such as high-rise residential, is not the problem at all. we're going a 240,000 square foot facility in sacramento that is all electric.

all our projects are all electric. we've been helping some cities and accounts with their reach codes such as santa rosa and san jose. we think it's an important issue. it's really a safety issue. it's an indoor air quality issue. it's also about reducing carbon emissions. we support this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is melissa, and i am a resident in supervisor peskin's district and i'm here representing the sierra club. we have collected a total of 101 signatures and petitions expressing support of this reach code which you should have received as they came in. and this is a timely and necessary ordinance, and we are excited that san francisco will be a leader and join the other 22 city and counties that have passed reach codes or gas bans,

although some have expressed here today, we are disappointed this ordinance is not all electric or at minimum have a electric ready component. electric new construction will be a key component to help us reach our climate action goals. and these invisible should have no place in our homes, especially in newly constructed buildings. we need to at least be electric ready to later on make the switch easily. we don't want to be a city left behind on gas or have to put more resources into making the switch when we can do that now. we know the demand from gas to electric will be increasing so let's stay ahead of the trend. we hope this ordinance can be amended in a timely manner to include the strongest electric ready language. we look forward to working with you all on this.

thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm coming to you as a member of the sierra club but also because i qualify under section 3b3 as an elder. and i do want to emphasize that my husband and i really suffered during 2017 especially, we were basically trapped in our house, because of the fires. and then we had to buy an air purifier. so i'm very on board with the issue of addressing climate emergency as soon as possible. i also understand that it is cheaper to build all electric. i think that's a very strong argument in addition to the health argument. thank you. >> i speak on behalf of the climate emergency coalition when we say we support passing items

5 and 6 and to thank mandelman for duplicating the reach code so that an electric ready requirement can be added quickly. we appreciate the department of the environment's work to make the building code have the greatest efficiency enhancements requirements possible for buildings, but we also know other municipalities in the bay area demonstrated an electric ready reach code can be done without reassessing the ordinance through title 24. and we know that efficiency enhancements alone are not enough to meet either mayor breed's commitment made at the global climate action summit to ensure that all buildings citywide be zero carbon by 2050 or make sure frontline environmental justice communities are prioritized in this climate mitigation policy as required by san francisco's declaration of climate

emergency. there are over 70,000 units of housing in the pipeline right now and the planning commission expects 75 percent of the city's growth over the next 30 years will take place in the southeast sector. not only is bayview hunters point identified under california ab617 as one of california community's already most impacted by air pollution, the southeast part of the city is also the warmest which puts the residents at risk for extreme heat events. building sufficient heat pump technology would provide not only safer air and reduce risks of explosions but provide access to life-saving act air-conditioning for residents of new buildings. we need to meet the goals of the 2030 report to do our part to avert the climate emergency or at least mitigate it. and this can only be done by going for all electric buildings or as close to that as possible now. thank you.

>> climate advocate with the climate emergency coalition, sf tomorrow and citizens climate lobby. having lived on the lowest east side since the '70s up the hill from dog patch, i have witnessed a multitude of massive developments sprouting up all around me with more starting all the time. the planning department say the city will build 72,000 new housing units. the vast majority will be in the eastern neighborhoods. if all these pipeline projects are not required to be at least electric ready, we are missing a huge opportunity to reach our climate goals while protecting people's health. the electric infrastructure will protect consumers from higher bills and expensive retrofitting. thank you supervisor mandelman for this ordinance incentivizing builders to build