diana. she was editor of the bazaar, and evoke, and went on and she was a miraculous individual, but she had something that was a very unique. she classified it as a third i. will lewis brown junior, who was mayor of san francisco, and was the champion of reopening this building on january 5th of 1999. i believe he has not a third eye , but some kind of antenna attached to his head because he had the ability to go through this building almost on a daily basis during the restoration and corrects everything so that it would appear as it was when it opened in december of 1915.

>> the board of supervisors approved that, i signed it into law. jeffrey heller, the city and county of san francisco oh, and and your band of architects a great thing, just a great thing. >> to impart to the history of this building is remarkable. to see a person who comes in with a gloomy look on their face , and all of a sudden you start talking about this building, the gloomy look disappears and a smile registers across their face. with children, and i do mainly all of the children's tours, that is a totally different feeling because you are imparting knowledge that they have no idea where it came from, how it was developed, and you can start talking about how

things were before we had computer screens, cell phones, lake in 1915, the mayor of san francisco used to answer the telephone and he would say, good morning, this is the mayor. >> at times, my clothes make me feel powerful. powerful in a different sense. i am not the biggest person in the world, so therefore, i have to have something that would draw your eye to me. usually i do that through color, or just the simplicity of the look, or sometimes the complication of the look. i have had people say, do those shoes really match that outfit?

retirement to me is a very strange words. i don't really ever want to retire because i would like to be able to impart the knowledge that i have, the knowledge that i have learned and the ongoing honor of working in the people's palace. you want a long-term career, and you truly want to give something to do whatever you do, so long as you know that you are giving to someone or something you're then yourself. follow your passion and learn how to enrich the feelings along the way.

>> chair peskin: welcome to the land use and transportation committee today, september 21, 2020. i am chair aaron peskin, joined by supervisor ahsha safai and supervisor dean preston. our clerk is miss erica major. miss major, could you please make any announcements. >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 pandemic, city hall and board rooms are closed. committee members will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they are

physically present. public comment will be available on each item of this agenda. depending on your provider, you can watch the meeting on cable channels 26, 78, or 99 or sfgov.org is streami-- sfgovtv streaming the number across the stream. the number is 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-283-2975. press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please press star, three to be added to the speaker line.

best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your television or radio. you may also submit comments comments in the following ways. e-mail myself at erica.major@sfgov.org or mail your comments to city hall. items recommended today will appear on the board of supervisors meeting on september 22, 2020. >> chair peskin: miss major, would you please call item 1.

>> clerk: yes. item 1 is an ordinance amending the building code to require new construction to utilize only interesting -- electric power. thank you, mr. chair. >> supervisor mandelman: the chair is frozen. we can wait for him to get back on, or supervisor safai, if you would like to take the reins

and then i will text supervisor peskin. >> supervisor safai: i know this item is being called by supervisor mandelman, so i'm just going to hand it over to him to make his opening statements and comments so we can keep the agenda going. >> supervisor mandelman: does the clerk need to call the first item or can we just go? >> clerk: i've called the first item. did i -- >> supervisor safai: no, you did. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, vice chair safai, and supervisor preston, and chair peskin if you can hear this. this ordinary an is anoth-- ordinance is another step

towards towards a safer san francisco. last fall, this board passed the electric preference ordinance which requires building to s buildings to compensate for their natural gas emissions by requiring higher construction rates. natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas in san francisco behind transportation emissions. we can see where our beautiful green planet is headed, and we do not like it.

i believe we must take every opportunity we can to change direction, and today, we have before you one such opportunity. natural gas is also a major health and safety hazard. this month marks the ten-year anniversary of the gas explosion in san bruno that killed eight people and destroyed virtually an entire neighborhood. last year, a gas line ruptured on geary boulevard that destroyed several buildings still sitting empty today. just last month, a gas explosion in a baltimore neighborhood killed two people and injured several others. in california, there are -- there is more than one gas leak or emergency reported every minute, and then, of course, we know that in california, natural gas poses an even bigger risk.

half of all the fires in the loma prieta were because of gas explosions. by comparison, electricity service can be restored very quickly, making us resilient in the face of future emergencies, as well. natural gas is also bad for our health. when used in our buildings and homes, it increased the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, as well as carbon die objection ice exposure. seniors with gas ranges and restaurant workers in hot kitchens are at higher risk of injuries due to gas and open flames, as well. so there are an abundance of reasons to quit natural gas, and at the very least, to require all electric construction for new residential and commercial buildings in san francisco, starting with projects that file for permits going forward.

the ordinance would allow buildings that have already submitted for permits to proceed, including under the electric preference requiremen requirements. this is a big change, but we're living through a big moment, and now, i believe is the right take to at the same this step, and i believe we have to keep moving quickly to dekosh annize our lives howevannize -- decarbonize our lives whenever we can. i am convinced that all of this is not only doable but for protecting our city for future generations. since -- he's back. since i introduced the legislation in june, the

ordinance has been thoroughly discussed for the building inspection commission and the environment commission and has been reviewed in detail by d.b.i. and environment staff and has received recommendations by both commissions. in addition, d.b.i. bulletin -- i want to thank the commissioners and especially president angus mccarthy as well as d.b.i. and department of environment as well as the dozens of san franciscans who participated and contributed their insight and passions through this project. i'm sure we'll be hearing from many of you today, as well. colleagues, before concluding,

i want to put forward a couple of amendments based on recommendations received by the commission as well as community advocates. this includes a banning of natural gas for outside heating in new homes or buildings, and any building constructed must be wired as electric ready. with regard to some of the concerns i have heard about this lemgs lation, i think it is important for everyone to keep in mind that this ordinance does not affect any existing home or building in san francisco. it doesn't affect buildings remodels or retrofits. this is only for negate construction permits applied for next year or later. so you will still be able to use your gas range, and so will all of your favorite restaurants.

>> chair peskin: i thought you were done. i apologize. >> supervisor mandelman: i did say that i was concluding, but i still have a couple more paragraphs. i will conclude shortly. the proposal was developed through a broad stakeholder process that began in earnest back in january, and that's why my office has worked closely with city staff. in addition, i will also be offering amendments that include a reporting requirement on the issue of mixed fuel reporting requirements to be reported to d.b.i. to be sure we're tracking effectiveness of the all electric requirement. there has been significant support from many organizations as well as from dozens of

design, technology, and construction professionals and organizations, including the california and san francisco chapters of american student architects and many organization organizatio organizations. i want to express my profound gratitude to all the city staff who have brought us to this point. following staff presentations and public comment, i will be asking that you move the amendments that we brought to you today and then continue this item 2 weeks until october 5. i believe these -- the amendments are substantive, and there remain several outstanding items that i imagine we'll hear about and discuss today that we need to

resolve prior to this committee voting on the legislation itself. i want to thank you for your time and attention today, and your partnership in keeping san francisco a leader in responding to climate change. >> chair peskin: thank you, sponsor mandelman. and let me just start with this is an imperative in every city in america. this is not just for a side like the san francisco municipality, but when a city our size does it, it's very meaningful. i cities do things like styrofoam ban. berkeley did it 20 years before us, but we got the credit. it's time that san francisco joined this movement, and we've got some very particular

situations here, and i really want to thank you for the meeting that you offered the chinese chamber of commerce last week, and there's still more work to be done there, and you acknowledge that, and i really appreciate that, and i would like to, you know, help bring those policy matters discussed in that because the financial underpinning of this legislation is as with most pieces of legislation is going forward, grandfather things going backward, that's kind of the time tested and true way that we legislate at the state, federal, and local level. i heard two conflicting pieces of advice relative to the concept of force majeure or

what would happen if there was an earthquake or a fire, would the castro be able to reconnect in the case of a major act of god? that ends with a question mark? >> supervisor mandelman: and i am going to ask that our city attorney spend some time during this hearing confirming, because i think you and i have differe different -- >> chair peskin: your staff and

my staff actually have the same interpretation, but yeah, let's hear it -- we can hear it from the department, but ultimately, i want to hear it from the attorney. >> hi, supervisor. this is james sohn. i hope everybody can hear me. >> chair peskin: we can hear you. >> i lead a testimony of mechanical engineer -- 11 mechanical engineer and electrical engineer to provide supplement and implementation to this wonderful ordinance. >> chair peskin: mr. song? >> yes. >> chair peskin: can you answer the question that supervisor mandelman just asked? >> supervisor mandelman, can you repeat the answer, please? >> chair peskin: the question is very simple.

if there is a fire, and 1,000 buildings burn down, you want to -- respectfully, supervisor mandelman, let's just hear from the attorney. >> okay. okay. thank you. >> chair peskin: sorry, mr. song. we mean you no disrespect, but this is a totally inappropriate way to get my question answered. so i appreciate your professionalism, but that's not what i'm asking. i'm not sure how this happened, but this is all happening on microsoft teams, so please do not feel disrespected. >> no problem, supervisor. >> chair peskin: thanks. >> i'll stand by in case you have -- [inaudible] >> chair peskin: fundamentally, i support this legislation, but we're trying to answer some fundamental questions here. deputy city attorney pearson,

good afternoon. >> deputy city attorney ann pearson, good afternoon. deputy city attorney rob kapla has been looking at this issue. i'm going to ask him to call in with the answer. >> chair peskin: this is the first time that you learned of this issue? >> i have not considered this question before it was raised today, but deputy tee attorney rob kapla has been working on this issue, so i would like him to -- department city attorney rob kapla has been working on this, so i would like him to dial in. >> chair peskin: i think that

is a threshold question. >> understood. i'll get him on the line. >> chair peskin: thank you, deputy city pearson. supervisor mandelman, i'm sorry to have interjected. do you have any other questions or responses or answers or anything left to say before i call on miss raphael? >> nothing, other than i'm rafael and she's raphael. >> chair peskin: it's hard to tell. madam director, department of environment. >> yes. i am debbie raphael, and i am the director of the department of environment, and i'm super excited to be here to present this item before you. i want to thank members of the

transportation and land use committee. i am joined, as we already saw by james zahn, several of my colleagues. very quickly, as the slides come up, so as you will see from the next slide that we have a pie chart that shows our emissions. this is what already supervisor mandelman has indicated, and the key thing is we have both joint emissions matters that we're dealing with right now. one is in diesel and gasoline,

and the other is in the built-in environment in the form of natural gas. if we do not tackle these items in the pie chart, we will not succeed in meeting our goals, and we will not protect the planet. next slide. in the first three arrows, our economy is growing, our population has been growing robustly, and our last measurement was to show that in 2018 we were 36% below 1990 levels. what's interesting about that slippage, if you will, is that this is all because of natural gas. what happened between 2017 and 2018 is that the way we do the

calculation trued up the leaks in the natural gas system. that is methane coming straight out of the pipes in the atmosphere, 86 more times potent than carbon dioxide, and actually, our emissions just went up a little bit. >> chair peskin: so you're saying in the context of these approximately 50 square miles? >> that's correct. that's correct. >> chair peskin: so we're not doing cows across the bay? >> so the methane that might come hafrom cows is not the methane that we measure, although the methane coming from your banana peels in the landfill would be. so the methane is what's making us flat and not being able to go down in our emissions. next slide.

we have those bold goals that supervisor mandelman referred to. these were signed off by mayor breed in front of a global audience. now, more than ever, i think we really understand that the use of any fossil fuel, including natural gas, is incompatible with our goals. today is an incredibly important start on that journey. it has -- as you heard, it's very important to keep reiterating, this is just a start, because this ordinance is for new construction. it's not for tenant improvements, it's for renovations, it's not for retrofit. we have a lot of existing buildings that we're going to need to tackle. that's not what is before you today. before you is to put a line in the sand and say no more natural gas because we understand the imperatives for the future.

no city as complex in terms of its building types have done this in the state. we are the first, and so all eyes are on us, and it's really important that we give this right, and with that, i would like to ask you cindy comerford to give you a really high outline of what this does and what we've accomplished. >> chair peskin: thank you, and my apologies for butchering your name. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. can you hear me? >> chair peskin: yes, we can. >> thank you. i feel like i'm presenting into a big black box. my name is cindy comerford.

obje objectiv as we go through this presentation, you're going to hear the term mixed fuel buildings, and that just refers to a building being built with natural gas. so all electric new construction or sometimes use the term building electrification has many benefits, and this illustrates all the benefits that supervisor mandelman has gone over in detail. for low-income communities and communities of color that are more likely to suffer from asthma because of impacts because of poor air quality, zero emission homes are an important way to deliver equity benefits. so next, i'm going to go

through state efforts and our policies to deliver this ordinance. mayor breed has signed an ordinance of zero net emissions by 2050, so to accomplish this goal, we embarked on launching the mayor's zero emissions building task force last year to ensure that we had inclusive and diverse representation. just to reiterate, we are only talking about newly constructed buildings today. so for the all electric billion constructibillion -- building work group, we brought together many key perspectives. community groups, affordable housing developers, investors, design professionals, environmental advocates, and the list goes on and on, and we

also have a steering committee, which we reported up the findings from our work group, which was a public private steering committee. so we had two work groups. this shows the breadth of our outreach efforts of all of them were cancered on not only trying to get this ordinance done but really about establishing expectations for long-term pardon nerships, building trust with our stakeholders and really identifying what are the best opportunities for the city to be a partner in this project. >> chair peskin: and miss comerford, i apologize for

interrupting your presentation, but how many languages was the outreach done in? >> that's a great question. we had outreach done in chinese and spanish and allowed them to ask questions. >> chair peskin: you reached out to building owners and managers association. did you ever reach out to the chinese chamber of commerce? >> we did. just to clarify some of the cultural outreach that we did, we did reach out to the chinese -- sorry, the chinese chamber of commerce, chinese for affirmative action, a.p.i., and a.t.p. the media roundtable we did was both in chinese or english. >> chair peskin: and i don't see that on this presentation. where does that happen? >> that's correct. so this slide shows our outreach until the introduction of the ordinance, which was in

june, so just kind of showing what we did to craft the ordinance, but since the introduction of the ordinance, we have been meeting with stakeholders almost every day, and i just mentioned some of our engagement, and we have also presented to the full building inspection commission, multiple subcommittees. >> chair peskin: supervisor mandelman said that. so basically, what you're saying is you cooked it, and after cooking it, you took it to the community. is that true it? >> we have been developing the ordinance, and then after the development of the ordinance, we have been doing additional outreach. >> chair peskin: so let me ask you this: is this supervisor mandelman's legislation or d.e.od.e d.o.e.s legislation? >> supervisor mandelman is the author of this legislation, and

we worked very closely with his office to develop it. >> chair peskin: sorry for the interruption. please go on. >> no, they're great questions. almost everyone agreed that we needed. we really focused on making sure that we were achieving our important objectives and goals, and that the ordinance was fair and balanced. i ism -- i'm having problems advancing. so that was a lot of background information, so now, i'm going to get into the specifics of the ordinance. so as i mentioned earlier, the

authority of this ordinance is from the california health and safety code, and there are five key components to this ordinance. so for projects that apply for initial building permitted after january 1, 2021, heating, water cooling, and clothes drying must be 100% electric. no permits will be issued to convert all electric buildings into mixed-field buildings, and for projects that include commercial food service establishments, mixed fuel building permits may continue to be accepted until january 1, 2022, provided that the gas lines are only for cooking.

we know that the restaurant industry is one of the hardest hit down the pandemic, and we want to make sure that we work especially with the restaurant industry. lastly, in the rare case that an exception is granted, mixed fuel permits must be as electric ready as feasible all complying with all energy efficiency codes, for all of you who aren't familiar with the term electric ready, it means in the rare case that there is an exception, and natural gas is available in the building, that the building needs to be wired for a future conversion all electric. so d.b.i. will be the implementing agency for this ordinance? so starting in 2021, if you build an all-electric building, you will just go through the regular building application process. so in the rare case that our

project sponsor has a physical or technical feasibility issue to build all electric, you will need to submit a waiver request accompanied in most cases by third party review to d.b.i. so once that waiver request is spitted, it will be reviewed -- submitted, it will be reviewed by d.b.i., a building plan review official, and the process is outlined in an administrative bulletin, either 112 or ab 112. it's about 20 pages lost. it was presented at building inspection commission last week, and it was passed. >> miss comerford, if ab 112 has been adopted by d.b.i., what are we doing here?

>> so that document is just how the document will be implemented if passed, so it's really -- >> chair peskin: hold on a second. d.b.i. is passing the regulatory implementation before we are passing the ordinance? is that -- which is, by the way, awesome. i've never seen it before, but that's awesome. >> yeah, i mean, we did it in -- to be transparent about how we were documenting the standard and procedures for implementation. it's a really key component to how we move forward with the ordinance. >> supervisor mandelman: i think both the environmental community and the development community were concerned about how this legislation would get interpreted and wanted to see those -- the interpretation up front and have the arguments and fights on the front end

rather than after the legislation had gotten passed. >> chair peskin: supervisor mandelman, through myself, i'm delighted that you figured all this stuff out. when we talked last week, i did not realize you'd gotten an administrative bulletin actually voted on by the commission. i've never seen that, but this is great. thank good. >> it's good to see a positive response. just to reiterate all the key components of that document, there's no exceptions. the exceptions are really meant to be limited to technical infeasibility. while there is an exception, it really should be limited to the specific area or system of the building that can't be electric, and then lastly, all exceptions will need to be

electric ready. so we believe it is feasible in almost all instances to construct new all electric buildings in san francisco, and that this waiver request should be infrequent. and while the exception process is meant to be very narrow, we said it up to ensure that we do not impede the development of housi housing. >> chair peskin: oh, sorry. go ahead. >> so this is the last section of the ordinance that i'm going to discuss, and i want to talk about the cost and equity analysis. so also, we are not required to do a cost effectiveness study because this will not go through the energy code. if we do want to present the best available cost data, so generally we believe this ordinance will be cost neutral based on both the qualitative and quantitative information we've collected as a department. so this illustrates data from three separate cost

effectiveness studies, and it generally shows that building all electric costs less. in many scenarios, the construction costs are less, which is depicted by the change in construction cost column, so those negative numbers represent change in first cost and also the elimination of the natural gas infrastructure. and then, the column on the right, which is labelled lifetime net present value kind of shows the positive savings from the operational cost over a 30-year period. and so that kind of outlines our -- the cost information. and lastly, i'd just like to talk about our equity assessment. last year, when the board of supervisors passed the legislation establishing the office of racial equity, that same piece of legislation will

require departments to submit an equity scan for legislation starting in the year 2022, but our department is very dedicated to racial equity, so we decided to pilot tool our equity scan -- sorry. we start today pilot test or equity scan tool on this piece of legislation. i want to provide a very brief analysis every overview. so this slide shows some of the areas of analysis and some of the potential concerns. we have submitted this report, and it's on file in the ordinance for you to read. some of the information was around low-income tenants and affordable housing. basically, we want to make sure that we work with our low-income tenants in afford na able housing. affordable housing has been a leader in this field, and this

equity analysis just kind of recommends that we continue to provide this technical service, and we investigate funding mechanisms and partnerships to support these ideas. so in summary, electric buildings can provide low-income communities access to cleaner air, healthier jobs, and good homes, but we really need to be intentional about it. so this is my last slide, and this slide illustrates some great examples of all electric buildings that are already exist in san francisco, so we know that this ordinance is possible. so i want to thank all the stakeholders that have contributed to this ordinance. i'm really proud of the work

that we have collaborated on with supervisor mandelman's office, and we believe we have developed an ordinance that's fair, balanced, and equitable, and that will achieve our long-term climate, housing, and health goals. the result of this process is one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation that significantly restricts the use of natural gas and applies to every building under san francisco's jurisdiction with only the narrowest exceptions. so with the covid-19 pandemic and the wild spread racial injustice and our recent wildfires caused by climate change, i feel like supporting this ordinance will give hope. >> chair peskin: no, no, no, no. we will pass the public policy, you just give us the facts. please, don't do -- >> so i will conclude my presentation, and we're happy

to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, and i apologize for that, but respectfully, when we hear from a department, we want facts. this is -- i mean, you're talking to the board of supervisors. please -- and i support this legislation. we've got a few kinks to work out, but your sales job is you don't tell us about hope and faith, please. all right. supervisor mandelman, back to you. >> supervisor mandelman: i don't think i have much more than that. i mean, i think that the equity issues that -- that the department has raised, and one of the things that the community -- that the environmental community has advocates for is us to invest in some resources within the department of the environment to actually help folks manage this transition to all electric and ensure equity. there's a little -- we are introducing some amendments today, i think we're going to

talk about some other potential amendments that may get introduced, and one of the potential amendments would be establishing some capacity in the department of the environment to assist developers, entrepreneurs, folks who need help sort of to manage all new all electric future, so that's a thing that we may take up with an -- which we could build in this legislation. >> chair peskin: all right. are there members of this committee -- supervisor safai? >> thank you, chair. thank you, department of the environment. i understand that was kind of a quick presentation based on the time and what we're doing. i'd like to know who was involved in the new construction working group. were the building and

construction trades involved in that, and have they been involved in the conversation, and who comprised the new construction group? also, kind of jumped over the idea of restaurants. strau restaurants of the backbone, in many ways, of our tourist economy. they employ so many people. by the time this legislation is introduced and signed, really, what we're saying is we're giving new construction one year for there to be an exception for building permitted that are placed. you know, i want to commend the department of environment. i've worked with them before, you know, on really forward thinking legislation that had to do with waste diversion. we're going to have a second phase of that coming up that will also help us meet our

environmental goals. i'm very committed to this legislation, but i do get the sense from some of the calls that i received from folks in the restaurant industry, both from specific ethnic communities represented in our city and then hearing from -- more recently from those in the construction industry that they haven't been fully involved in the overall conversation, but i'd like to hear supervisor mandelman's office respond to that and then maybe the department of environment. building managers aren't involved in any new construction. obviously, they're involved in managing their existing properties, and existing properties aren't impacted by this legislation. it's really about new construction, so i'd like to hear who was involved in the new construction working group, and then, i'd like to hear how much input the overall restaurant industry had, and then, you know, lastly, what

supervisor peskin brought up, you know, not just in language, you know in chinese, but what other outreach was done in other none -- non-english speaking communities. >> supervisor mandelman: so i'm going to leave it to -- i think it would be beneficial to have either the department or jacob and my staff run through a list of who all was involved in the new construction working group. it was extensive, and i think cindy probably has that list, which -- i hope or somebody can run through it. it did involve developers in both market rate and affordable construction. it did involve the trades. the plumbers participated, the electricians, of course, were part of it. vince courtney showed up for one or two of the meetings from

the laborers, so there was an amazing trade representation there, as well. but we should get that test and even just run through it quickly, if somebody can. cindy, are you able to -- >> chair peskin: yeah, and supervisor mandelman, as you know, based on the conversation that you and i had with the chinese chamber and your staff and my staff last week, i am deeply committed to this legislation. it is the right thing. we are not the leader, but as san francisco slowly redevelops -- and as i say, possession of nine-tenths of the law, we are going to get this thing passed, and we can go down the list of who was at the table. i'd just let the head of the department of environment know that this has not been well handled any number of ways, particularly with the chinese community, and -- but we're

going to fix this. we are going to fix this, and it's profoundly important that everybody fixes this and believes in this or it's not going to work. the government shoving stuff down people's throat, people get around it. they'll just throw a gas line. they'll never find out about it. people have to invest in this or it's not going to work. and i don't mean to cutoff supervisor safai or your response to his outreach, which i'm sure that's what it was, and all these meetings happened. the regular thing is these meetings happened a year ago, and all of these things kicked in, and we didn't have time and the pandemic -- and i'm not blaming you, miss raphael or you or anybody else, but let's go cross or is and dot our ts.

my desire is to continue this for a very short period of time, and let's go do that work, and then, let's bring it back with acceptance from the restaurant community, the chinese american community, the building trades community, and get this thing passed. and let's have some real facts. and to the representative from the department of the environment, i'm sorry for being harsh, but we deal with acts as public policy. you want the legislation, i want the legislation, but that's not how we actually craft legislation. so if i'm going to ask you questions, i'm going to say okay, we had a waiver process for restaurants going forward, and probably no one's going to pull the gas line into new construction. how much methane are we going to add in san francisco, and what's that worth? that is your job.

your job is not to sell estimates. >> supervisor safai: so thank you, mr. chair. appreciate you, in many ways, adding onto what i said. i just want to say, i've worked with director raphael and her team, and we've done a lot of this type of work before. somehow with the massive disruption of covid, a lot of work has been disrupted in terms of community outreach, so now, we're picking it back up. people are paying attention now. i agree with what you said, chair peskin. i am 100% committed to this legislation. i think it's very forward thinking. we're going to get there, but we have to make sure that all the stakeholders that will be impacted have an opportunity to weigh-in, and whether it's two weeks or whether it's a month, i mean, director raphael will tell you, when we did our -- you know, our large refuse

generator, i like to call it our green jobs legislation, it took quite a bit longer than it might have, but in the end, it ultimately was a consensus measure. we made the few exceptions that we needed to make. we delayed certain aspects of the legislation's implications that we needed to make skpr, a the end, the legislation is working well for san francisco, and i think the same thing will be true here. i just wanted to get on the record that i got a flurry of calls in the last few days from people that felt like this was being rushed. i want to give them the opportunity -- and i appreciate, supervisor mandelman, all the hard work that you put into this. we're going to get tot finish line together, and i'm sure you're going to come back and say well, now, they're responding, and now, it's on their radar. that's what happens once it's

agendized and people see that it's moving forward. i think there needs to be a little more conversation with the restaurant industry, and we can understand that a little bit more. if you're saying that the new construction group involved many different aspects of the trades, i'm sure we'll hear from them today. and then, the non-english speaking community, that's always a challenge for any piece of legislation, for sure. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i mean, i think those are good points. i am going to push back on the notion that this has been a pushed process. the environmental community, correctly realizing that we are facing the destruction of life on the planet as we know it, has -- was alarmed by our

electric preference legislation last year because it did not go far enough and opted us to instead be doing a ban. and we said oh, no, no, we can't just do a ban right now, we need to have all these conversations. so we began a series of conversations, i think with great help -- preferably led by the department of the environment, and a lot of great work went into these conversations -- over many, many months to develop the legislation. i -- i am not at this point saying we should rush it. at this point, as i said, i'm asking for a continuance for two weeks, and i think that, you know, we may need one more bite. assuming there are additional amendments that get introduced in two weeks, it's going to be one more meeting after that at

least. but the notion that it would take this board longer than a year to get a ban on natural gas in new construction is the hard part, this is the easy part where we can accommodate most people's reasonable requests and expectations, and if we're actually going to be avoiding having blackout days -- this is the days that the sun doesn't rise, being most days, we're going to have to move much more quickly in the future in ways that make life, you know -- that do impact people's lives.

it is possible that we don't get everyone's buy in -- i see the chair shaking his head and acknowledging that he understands that -- okay. i'll stop. >> chair peskin: look, thank you, supervisor mandelman -- and look. i'm going to share my implicit bias, and my implicit bias, and director raphael, correct me if i am wrong, and i think you just said this, supervisor mandelman -- and look, i truly appreciate. it is a global imperative that every city on the planet stops using methane and ch4, and how

we do that, and in this, the chinese community is profoundly important. and how those communities do this and come to embrace is a conversation. my implicit bias is the department of the environment doesn't do this well at all. director raphael, how much outreach have you done over supervisor mandelman's or your collaborative outreach in cantonese or mandarin or other languages? >> so that is -- frankly, that is fair, and i say it is fair not we've never done it, but we do a lot of chinese language outreach. with this initiative, we invited people to the table to be part of these working groups

towards figuring out how to get this ordinance written in a way that was implementable and understandable. we did not get the attention of language, and we likely did not do enough in language, and we can do more of that. we can absolutely do more. it is not something we are blind to, it is something we have a long history to, so thank you. >> chair peskin: and i was very, very clear with the chinese chamber of commerce that this is an imperative, but how we do that, and how we do that in a way that is inclusive and respectful is profoundly important to the success of this legislation not only in san francisco but around the world. if it's -- i'm sorry for being just so candid, you know. elite white people shoving this stuff down other community's throats, it will be a failure

on its first day. why don't we open this up -- supervisor preston, if you have no comments -- supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: yeah, if i can just jump in. thank you, supervisor mandelman and department of environment, for bringing this forward. i do want to say that while i've gotten certainly a lot of e-mails from folks who want to make substantive changes one way or another, which one would expect on legislation of this importance and impacting so many constituencies, i feel like i may be missing a little what the concerns are rushes. i hear the sponsor coming in asking for a couple of weeks to working out amendments. i look forward to learning more

about the amendments. i think i share with supervisor mandelman, and i know this with you, colleagues, the sense of urgency, and it's just been -- i think it was april of 2019, before i was on the board, when the board declared nanny -- passed a resolution declaring climate emergency. it's been a while, as supervisor mandelman pointed out, since the electric preference lemgs latiogislatio as he pointed out was successful but not addressing climate change, so this is a follow-up piece of legislation on that. i'm certainly not commenting one way or another by outreach efforts on the department. if there's outreach that needs to happen, i'm confident that supervisor mandelman's office and the department of the environment will lead that.

but i did just want to say, you know, that some of these are difficult things to swallow for the industry, but they're critically important, so i just wanted to -- just wanted to weigh-in to thank you for your advocacy efforts on this, supervisor mandelman, and i think we'll get there, it sounds like. i was not aware -- maybe i missed it in the materials -- of the administrative bulletin that was referenced, 112, so would love if that was in the material pacts, but also if there are any other regulations that have been passed in advance of this passing. as jeff haskin has said, it would make implementation much easier, but definitely would like to see this item come back to us, assuming it is continued.

>> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai, if you just raised your hand. >> supervisor safai: i did. i did hear this from some in the building community, that's why i was asking about the new construction group. maybe there's someone from building department that can give us some insight on this, but in regards to the technology that has to do with water heating for a large apartment building, is the technology in place that they're electric versus natural gas because when i do my due diligence, talking to some people in the construction industry, they seem fine overall with the legislation. the only question they had push back on in terms of water heating for a large apartment building, is the technology there that's all electric? >> chair peskin: so i do

believe that this is the appropriate time for mr. zahn from d.b.i. could respond. >> supervisor safai: and did i that so mr. zahn could actually speak. >> yes, supervisors, i can do my best to address that. so they are a newer technology for water heating that's called the [inaudible] water heating. >> supervisor safai: say that again. >> heat pump. >> supervisor safai: heat pump water heating. >> yeah, it's a heat pump. so it's particularly a technology that heats from the -- the surrounding of the building or this device, so that -- that is a highly efficient technology. now, they are mostly used for smaller buildings. i can definitely envision that

a heat pump water heater would provide for three to five, even six units, so that is the primarily that the industry has been talking about to replace the gas tank water heater. >> supervisor safai: and you said how many units would that go to? >> i would say for one larger size unit, it's probably used for five units. >> supervisor safai: what about a -- what about a 60 or 100-unit building? >> that technology -- this technology of water heating is not designed or built for that

kind of -- >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you, mr. zahn. so my question would be, then, for the legislation, doesn't legislation account for if the technology is not in place for that certain aspect, does it account for that building to be mix mixed fuel with the option in place to go all electric? >> supervisor mandelman: how big was that building that just opened? >> there are lots of examples of dozens and dozens of ten floors and above of residential units with all electric, so this may be a question, supervisor safai, of a little bit of crossed wires in terms

of interpretation. and to answer your question directly, we have exception language that definitely understands that there may be narrow circumstances where the technology has not caught up, and in those cases, you have exceptions because it's not technically feasible. >> supervisor safai: yeah, that was my question, if something's not technically feasible. >> yeah, and that's super important in a city as complicated as san francisco with so many different building types. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> chair peskin: okay. can we open this up for public comment? madam clerk? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. looks like we have 33 listeners, 17 in queue. shawnna, if you can queue in the first caller, please. >> chair peskin: thank you. first speaker, please. >> hi.

my name is [inaudible] i'm a resident of san francisco and a resident of district 7? i strongly support the phasing out of gas in new construction. san francisco has the chance to lead the state and the country in building a better future. as a young person, the expansion of natural gas in our buildings is very importantly because as we've seen over the past few weeks, climate change is happening even more faster and with more consequences than have been predicted? so with the latest wildfire season and hazard air quality throughout the bay area, it's apparent we're out of time to waste, and so we really need to pass this ordinance as strongly as possible.

electrification will reduce greenhouse gases in homes 30 to 60%, and that savings will only rise as our energy grid gets cleaner? i'd also like to note that natural gas is a health risk. as [inaudible] as lung cancer and most respiratory diseases and increases risk from covid-19, and we know that electrification is actually cheaper, it's better, and it's easier to employ, and with this ordina ordinance, it'll be easier to put up. [inaudible] the san francisco emergency coalition and other local groups in going to the commission and board. i'd also like to read a brief

quote from greta thunberg to remind us of this crisis. she said i don't want you -- >> clerk: thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is [inaudible] rodriguez, and i'm a resident of san francisco, specifically, district 9, and i'm calling to share my support in elimination of natural gas in new construction. my wife and i were wanting to start a family, but we are really scared. i don't have to tell you that climate change is here, and with all the conditions that we've been dealing with the last few weeks are our new normal, and there's no way of escaping it. even in our homes, the gas

range significantly degrades the air quality inside our homes, so i urge you to pass this through the board of supervisors without further delay. i don't -- i don't want to sound like an alarmist, but you know, jack, the alarms are already going off, we can't delay our response, and as head of the department of environment said, continued use of natural gas is incompatible with our city's goals. the new ordinance would only apply to new construction, i think you should strongly consider eliminating the feasibility exceptions to electric requirements. now if you do keep the feasibility determination, any determination should be based on substantial revenues and subject to judicial review. another thing, because this

ordinance only applies to new construction is [inaudible]. thank you very much for taking the time to address this issue, and i hope you recommend it to the board of supervisors, and i do now with no further adieu, encourage you to pass this item. we need to move fast, act with strong decisions. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. good afternoon. my name is mora mcknight, and i am the executive director of the council for climate change based in san francisco. it's been an honor to are in this hearing today, and i want to thank the board of supervisors and city staff that are leading on this ordinance, especially on the department of the environment during this critical time. our organization was founded in

2007, and we're a membership driven nonprofit as corporate sustainability leaders that are championing tangible climate action here in this region. our members are some of the largest employers of san francisco and collectively, they employ over 750,000 people. this legislation that you're considering today is a really bold step on climate, and i applaud all of the individuals and groups that have worked on this to date. many of our 20-member companies have set carbon neutral and net-zero goals on emissions by 2050. we're moving towards what i call a moon shot goal. some of them have set carbon negative environments goals by 2030, and they're moving towards carbon capture and removal technology. i will echo what has been said

multiple times today that all of us in the bay area have just been reminded of the very real climate emergency that we are in and the disastrous effects for public health and for our environment, and especially during the pandemic. the time to act boldly is now, and this legislation is perfectly timed. our members are leaders in this space, and they have been doing electrification pilot projects here in san francisco and abroad because they know this is key to meeting our climate goals. natural gas and the fossil fuel pollutant is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. >> clerk: your time is up. thank you. >> we strongly support this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. it looks like we have 39

listeners and 26 in queue to speak. >> hello, good afternoon. my name is danielle cortez of flat lines. flat lines is an environmental justice nonprofit that serves low-income communities through san francisco through air quality monitoring, leadership, and john training, among other work. we support this lejs lakes as serving environmental justice, we can't add new plux or emissio [inaudible] in 2019, victoria stafford of flat line was also supportive of your work in last

year's meeting. [inaudible] we commend the supervisor for following up that decision with extensive action. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition in support of the legislation. when this first got introduced, we reached out to the supervisor's office with a couple of questions, concerns, certainly around the impact on construction for new housing as well as whether or not this would lead to us burning fossil fuels at a different level in the process. the supervisor and jacob in his office came and talked to us

and presented at a member committee and has already highlighted those concerns were alleviated after having conversations. so happy to be here in support. this is certainly something that we want to see moving forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is helena berkey, and i live in district 9 [inaudible] and then passing it as soon as possible. physics doesn't wait. you are concerned about restaurants. think about what's happened when you have covid, and you can't have people indoors, and then, you have smoke, and you can't have people outdoors. what does that do to the

restaurants? acting on climate change is not about acting on chielimate cha, it's about acting on people's health, for people's safety. it's about acting so that people can continue to have businesses and have them run and have people come. we know that we can't not mitigate climate change respectively without going all electric. all electric buildings are the first, easiest step in that direction. you want all stakeholders to have a voice? think about if there were an earthquake, and because of natural gas pipelines, 1,000 homes burned down? you don't think those tenants and children would want those gas lines back if they could have a safer, cleaner all

electric home instead? we are in emergency times. it is not like it was. people recognize emergency, and they want to be safe and healthy. please strengthen this ordinance, make it so that anything that can't be completely all electric right now must be fully electric ready so that real can swap out the sciences for healthier homes when it is available. >> clerk: your time is up. thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is dave fahey, and i am calling with local 38, the policemeners and pipe fitters -- plumbers and pipe fitters union of san francisco. i was a participating member on the city's zero emission task

force new construction steering committee. we appreciated the opportunity to be part of this ordinance process to date, but we are still not in toting acceptance per our agreement with the ordinance as it is written. with that being said, we understand the need for decarbonization and just as important, renewable gas and sustainability for a smart future. we look forward to the opportunity to continue working on the ordinance prior to its final approval process as the supervisors had mentioned. specifically, one of the points we don't feel is being addressed is a just transition for the workforce, the gas workforce, and the impacts that the ordinance creates on all the workforce that deals with gas, specifically with the covid going on.

along with the holistic approach that we mechanintioneh renewable gas energy and green build methoded, specifically, this new construction ordinance is, you know, the grounds for the future, and the -- all the effects that it has on the decommissioning of the gas infrastructure as it goes forward. so i think if we take a little bit of time and make sure that everybody is totally on board with this ordinance, it's the best process moving forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. looks like we have 37 listeners with 27 in queue. >> hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. you may begin your comments.

[inaudible] >> i'm a resident of san francisco in district 2. i strongly support this ordinance. natural gas are not necessarily needed in building our homes and building. as a renter here in the city, prohibiting gas in apartments and buildings is stivery import to me. i still have gas in my buildings, and if i used the gas, it would be a health risk to myself and the people near to me, and i wouldn't be able to open the windows. as we move closer to climate change, the air quality is going to get worse and worse.

flaubl and [inaudible] it's also important to me that this legislation eliminates the blanket exemption for commercial kitchens delaying compliance until 2022. this is not helping by giving builders a pass in making future kitchens all electric. yeah, that is all. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments again. if you would like to make public comment on item number 1 today, please call in 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-283-2975. press pound, and pound again. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is nan foster.

i'm a resident of district 10 here in san francisco. i've lived in the district for 20 years, and i really am -- i'm asking you to support this legislation. i think the recent fires and the smoke that we've had from the fires here in san francisco has made it really clear that we need to do everything we can to reduce climate change, and it's -- and we have to protect air quality. just a little anecdote in our home in the bayview, we recently got one of the purple air monitors. we were shocked to find that even with the windows closed, we had the monitor inside the house, and in the living room, we get up in the morning, and we find out that the air quality was in the unhealthy range in the house with the windows shut, so it wasn't

until we put the air purifier on high within a few feet of the monitor, that we had the air quality good, and we have natural gas in our house like most people do. we've got to do everything we can to protect air quality, and if people are going to have windows closed, it's especially important to do everything we can to protect indoor air quality. especially as we know, asthma and other respiratory diseases are impacted by these pollution, and the interpretation is that the greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 60%. please pass legislation as soon as possible to do what we can

and need in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible]. >> clerk: ma'am, we can't really hear you. we're going to pause your time. if you can -- if you can speak into the phone.

>> [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is elizabeth chant. i'm with nrdc, the natural resources defense council, and

i work with cities around the west on achieving their climate goals. i'm also a constituent. i live in supervisor mandelman's district, and i applaud his efforts and all of your efforts on this legislation. natural gas is dangerous. i personally get the city's text alerts weekly about dangerous gas leaks around san francisco, and we all remember san bruno. natural gas is a natural fuel, and much of it naturally comes from fracking, and it's possible to get most of this out of our buildings. it's the source of more than a third of san francisco's carbon emissions, and in this climate emergency, we need action, and

fast. natural gas pollutes the air both in our cities and our homes, endangering the residence de residents, as we've heard, children and people with asthma. we urge you to pass this in three ways. all buildings passed with an exemption should be at least passed with electric ready. we urge more public oversight and visibility into exemptions, and we suggest creating a clean energy building [inaudible] to coordinate resources and training. we've all gone through the terrible air quality from california real estate's fires, and we all remember the recent day when the air was so dark with smoke, it was like the sun never came up. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments. [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. you have two minutes. >> -- san francisco resident in san francisco district 2. [inaudible] kind of disruption from covid-19 can do to our lives and actually [inaudible] is we have to attach big changes very fast, and they did a great job -- >> clerk: looks like we may have lost that caller, so let's do this.

let's take note of the caller number, and then, we'll return to that caller and move onto the next caller. again, if you would like to make spubpublic comment, call 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. and press pound, and pound again. press star, three to lineup into the queue. you only have to do this once, and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when we get to you, it will indicate that you have been unmuted. sean, next speaker, please. it looks like the last caller was dropped, so if you could call back to get into the queue. thank you. >> thank you to the city officials and workers for allowing me time to comment on this. my name is matthew modine, and

[inaudible] in bayview-hunters point called city of dreams. as someone who's had chronic asthma since childhood and bauc watching the challenges of the large number of kids in this program, i strongly urge that you pass this ordinance. the impact of pollution, in particular natural gas, has been established by previous commenters, but i'd like to comment as someone who worked in the restaurant industry for multiple decades. first off, anyone who's gone into a closed restaurant, open it up and see six to eight burners that have been burning on natural gas pilot lights for

a six-to-eight-month closing understands the overturning the ordinance. it is really turning a blind eye to the need. first of all, i know that the supervisors are all really well versed in understanding the difference between constituents and industry groups, but i know that much of the opposition to this comes from industry groups but are more franchise chain operations that don't include those that have been really thoughtful on the impact, particularly of entrepreneurial food service establishments. and just like the other folks, i hope you consider the -- [inaudible] >> clerk: your time is up. thank you.

>> thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. if you have not done so already, please press star, three to enter into the queue. to the caller who had a bad connection, just go ahead and call the number that's streaming on the screen, and we'll get to you. thank you. >> hi. is it my turn now? >> clerk: yes, you've been unmuted. it's your turn. >> okay. all right. so i understand that many people have a concern about natural gas, which is of course legitimate, but i'm kind of confused because this legislation seems to be a ban -- it's not a ban on usage of natural gas, it's a mandate requiring all new construction to be -- to just use -- be all

electric, not just -- you know, not using natural gas, and -- and requiring new construction to be all electric. so i -- the concern is natural gas, why isn't the -- the proposed legislation just simply a ban on natural gas? i have concerns that this legislation could, you know, limit consumer choice and -- yeah. i just don't understand why there's not simply a ban on natural gas if the issue is natural gas. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is bonnie joil. i am a resident of san francisco district 10, and i support this legislation. i have had to be covid tested several times recently because of my reaction tot bad air, and i would like to see that nobody else, including myself, is affected that way in the future. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have 18 callers in queue. next speaker, please. you'll be notified that your line has been unmuted, and you may begin. >> hi. my name is [inaudible], and i live in district 5, and i want to thank supervisors for their work on this, particularly supervisor mandelman in your work that you've done

[inaudible] in the last year. i want to support this policy. as many policies have been mentioned, the climate change that we talked about so long is here, and the impact is real, and as an avid outdoors person, i've seen a number of places that i know and love have been just absolutely devastated by wildfires this year. limiting the fuel like natural gas [inaudible] those sorts of changes [inaudible] department of environment last year one of the major contributors to emissions in san francisco, so i think this [inaudible]. i just want to express my support for the letter written by [inaudible] and other organizations expressing support for [inaudible] some of the opportunities to wiggle out of some of these policies, and we just want to make sure that

this policy is effective [inaudible]. thank you so much for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. are you able to hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> okay. i think i attempted to comment earlier, but my line wasn't working well, so i'm going to try again. my name is [inaudible] sheer. i'm a resident of san francisco district 6, and a senior medical student at ucsf. today, i'm speaking on behalf of climate health now as well as physicians for climate social responsibility. as medical professionals, we strongly support adopting this ordinance along with the amendments to strengthen it as recommended by the earth justice letter, including

requiring all buildings to be fully electric ready and eliminating things like decorative natural gas use. as a future pediatrician, i want to highlight especially the risk to children. the metaanalysis between the child of gas stoves and asthma in between [inaudible] 42% higher chance of asthma. they are well established triggers of lung and heart disease for which there is no known [inaudible] level of exposure. there's also concern that growing exposure to those elements have an increased risk of death due to covid-19. it's more crucial than ever to protect the people of san

francisco from harmful indoor air pollution. in addition, worsening wildfire smoke events our major public health intervention is cleaning indoor air. the health professionals i speak for today are deeply worried about how our children are going to live in the world that we live for them. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes your time. next speaker, please. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is [inaudible] jeffrey living stone consulting. i'm speaking in support of this legislation and really all decarbonization efforts but

across san francisco, all of the bay area, california, and abroad. i have the pleasure of sitting on the task force for existing buildings while working for a retailer in san francisco earlier this year before joining [inaudible] consulting, and i just want to echo what the department of environment has already outlined as many of the issues first and foremost, that we're in a climate emergency, but secondly, to point out that the technologies are available to us today. my firm helps provide a lot of that technology to stakeholders in order to process and meet the ordinance, and i just want to make sure that the group knows from a commercial building perspective through to residential buildings, the if he can -- technology is more than available to us on this ordinance, and i would encourage that we move forward with the ordinance [inaudible].

thank you again to the supervisors, the department of the environment, and everybody. >> clerk: hello. you have two minutes. >> hello, supervisors. my name is paul werme, and i've been involved in climate change for many, many years, both looking at the industry and in climate environment. first, i would like to endorse the statement from the speaker from the nrdc. i would note the pacific energy center has incredible skill in this area. they're located on howard street, and could very well be an excellent resource to bring in. it's clear, listening to the

answer from the d.b.i. meeting, these are new technologies, and training is needed to make sure everyone comes up to speed. i am concerned about the -- the way the instructions are managed. some things are just blanket okay. if it's not part of the water heating or heating systems, it can go in. any use of natural gas in a building should require an exception process to demonstrate why there is not an acceptable alternative. the number of these cases are rare, but bear in mind, any building built using natural gas for any purpose whatsoever will, as of today, be objecsol in terms of its energy systems

by 2045, if not sooner, given the stated goals of the state of california through executive orders, through the positions taken by mayor breed, and the growing recognition of the urgency of this matter. is it really wise to provide exceptions to build any building that will no longer be able to function as intended in less than 25 years? this is especially the case when, for example, there is not face for transformers -- >> clerk: thank you very much. [inaudible]. >> clerk: next speaker, please. you'll notified that you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comments. >> hello. my name is eric [inaudible] and i am 24 and i live in san francisco in supervisor

mandelman's district. when we talking about the people who are going to be living not only with the consequences of the climate crisis, which is exacerbated by natural gas in buildings, but also the people who are going to be living in these buildings, and the people who are going to be living with the consequences of the air pollution that is being locked in, i think others have made the point very eloquently with data that there is a public health risk just purely from the effects of the air pollution that is resulting from this natural gas in buildings. the e.p.a. air pollution limits -- the air pollution that's produced by natural gas, if it was produced outside, the e.p.a. would consider it illegal and harmful, and that just i think speaks to the fact

that on a pure health basis alone, it should be [inaudible]. last, i just wanted to thank supervisor peskin for keeping the department of environment honest. there's been a long history of not listening to marginalized communities, and i think there's been some effort to reverse that. many concerns that have historically been levelled by allegedly [inaudible] are propaganda from fossil fuel companies. there is a push to get this ban issued at the state level [inaudible]. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you so much.

next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes, and you'll be notified that your line has been unmuted, and you may begin your comments. >> good afternoon. my name is tom [inaudible].

we know from past experience that transition never happens after the fact. [inaudible] the time to act on it is now, otherwise, it'll be just another empty promise. all eyes are on san francisco for this ordinance, so it's more important than ever to do

this right. we think there's time to do this right. we urge you to work with local 38 as we move forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you very much. we have 12 speakers in queue, and you'll be notified when your line has been unmuted and you may provide your comments. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i live in supervisor mandelman's district. [inaudible] i'm calling in support of this ordinance. i want to thank supervisor mandelman's office for moving it forward, and i do want to thank supervisor peskin for [inaudible] i look forward to the leadership of this

committee to address these things going forward but to stop this from going through. two weeks to work out the details [inaudible] making sure it does pass and passes as quickly as possible, so thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. hello, caller? >> chair peskin: caller, please go ahead. >> clerk: sean, let's return to this caller, and let's take

the next speaker. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. >> hi, commissioners. my name is [inaudible], and i'm calling in on behalf of sierra club, and i'm also a resident of district 3. so i'm calling in today to state our support for the ordinance to stop further building gas infrastructure. there are right now 30 cities in california that have adopted building codes to reduce their alliance of gas, and really excited to hear that san francisco is also moving forward. we cannot wait. gas free buildings should be the standard for new construction because it is technically feasible and

ecologically feasible. there is a study that estimates the positive impacts of electrification, and the study reveals about a 100,000 increase in electrician whand 4500 in construction jobs when switching to all electric. i'm going to ask that the commissioners pass this ordinance with the recommended changes mentioned to strengthen the ordinance? city leadership is really essential, not just for local climate action, but also to convince the california energy commission to require at least for all electric new construction in the next iteration of the statewide building code of title 24? again, this ordinance cannot wait. our federal government has already made a lot of environmental roll backs, so we are really heavily relying on

local cities to lead the way. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we're going to take the caller that we didn't hear before this one. sean, next caller, please. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. >> hi, can you hear me? my name's [inaudible] i'm a resident of san francisco living in district 3. i strongly support eliminating gas in new construction. all of us know that san francisco can lead the state and country in building a better future. as someone who chose to live in the bay area [inaudible] is important because climate change is upon us and

[inaudible] i don't want to have to teach my children one day that we didn't do everything we could in this city of all places. in the last few weeks, poor air quality on the west coast forced people to stay inside [inaudible] or just not cooking and using appliances. what's more, affordable housing developers know that all electric is healthier, cheaper to build and more reliable [inaudible] so i ask you to please recommend the changes to the ordinance [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes, and you'll be notified that your

line has been unmuted. >> hi. my name is chris, and i'm a resident of supervisor mandelman in district 3. there are a number of critical loopholes that are in the public interest and it's time for the city to close them. [inaudible] you should create a public interest exemption process so that developers can prove to the public that the proposed exceptional use is in the public interest. please also amend section 106-a

d -117. when an exemption is granted, ordinance does not mandate electric ready in every case. instead, it only requires electric ready as feasible. this is unacceptable to give away to developers [inaudible] with electric ready, you have the power to mitigate [inaudible] asseted and prepare for the future [inaudible] finally, i strongly support establishing a clean energy building hub as proposed by poder and others. [inaudible] thank you so much for taking up this important issue and considering the health and safety of our city and climate. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> hi. my name is rebecca parker, and i'm a resident of district 3 and an attorney on above of justice. i wanted to comment today personally, as well. i don't want to repeat what so many other speakers have reiterated so well, so i'll be brief. our home is on fire and we need to act like it. new construction is the easy part, and adoption of this ordinance will reverberate beyond this city and impact state building code standards that are currently under consideration by the california building commission. [inaudible] thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker , please. you'll be notified that your line has been unmuted, and you

may begin your comments. >> hi. this is erica reinhart. i'm a resident of san francisco in district 7. the health impacts of gas in our homes are horrendous. i'm the mother of a 2.5-year-old who's new preasthmatic. i strongly recommend that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible not only to help preserve the health of all of our children particularly those in smaller homes where these impacts are felt more acutely, but also to help the climate. as we just saw in the last few weeks, when we were stuck inside, and that same little toddler had to be taken out of

san francisco to allow him to be outside. it's really important that we educate people on -- on the benefits of these changes. as someone who's also [inaudible] working on electrifying my home, these are all changes that i'm quite happy about now that i know about, so i'm urging you to invest in the clean energy hub to educate more residents in their options and we don't consider to invest in poor energy structure that will be more expensive later down the road to put in place. >> clerk: thank you. we have 26 listeners and six

speakers left in few. >> [inaudible] district 6 resident, and i want to say i support this resolution. we do need to switch off of natural gas as a major part of climate change and as we've seen with the recent fires, we need to take action now. there's much more that needs to be done, as well, which should be a major job creator, as well, in converting all of these buildings to natural gas. we need to take action now and ensure that we're getting to upgrading the buildings as soon as possible and this is the first step in doing that, so i urge you to take action quickly on this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> hi, supervisors. i'm dean wilson. i'm a resident of san francisco

in district 4, and i strongly support this legislation. it is only a first small step, but it is incredibly necessary to address climate change. i'm a lifetime resident of san francisco, and it has been incredibly upsetting to see my home on fire these past weeks, and i would like to encourage the committee and the board to strengthen this ordinance as other speakers and organizations have mentioned. there should not be the feasibility exception to the electric ready requirement, and any exceptions to this ordinance, we must undergo a [inaudible] and not just in the interest of private developers. as well, there should not be the blanket exception for commercial kitchens. this is unnecessary, and it does not help current restaurants, since it only affects current construction. thank you for your time, and

please support this ordinance. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. this is john anderson, san francisco resident from district 2, continuing my call. the point was the disruptions caused by the restaurant community and the community as a whole, they're nothing compared to the climate crisis. the climate crisis is not happening as fast as the pandemic, but the risks are far greater. i mean, the -- this would be nothing compared to what we're looking at. we have the technology for going gas free. all of the barriers are for

adaptation -- adoption, sorry. the longer we wait, the bigger the disruption is going to be. we're in the middle of a housing crisis. we're supposed to be building housing as fast as we can. the longer we wait to implement these restrictions, the more stranded assets the city's going to be stuck with. we've seen with the pandemic the cost of delay, so i understand the desire for just transition, and the consideration, but we cannot delay indefinitely. it's going on two years. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes, and the line will notify that your line has been unmuted -- or the system prompt, rather. >> hello. my name is [inaudible] i'm a

12-year resident and independent business owner here in district 9. we all know that the goal of ele electrificati electrification of everybody here in san francisco and worldwide. we'll only have a gas furnace in 2021. so if we can electrify our little 1,000 square foot house to protect the climate on our own dime, we can certainly require for-profit developers and builders to do the same thing. so i urge the land use committee to ensure that this ordinance has as huge [inaudible] as possible.

finally, i'd like to see this expands to as many buildings as possible. thank you for your good work. that's it. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is jennifer [inaudible] i'm a resident in district 3 in san francisco. speaking publicly is one of the last thi last things i thought i would do, but here i am [inaudible] it's important to me as someone is terrified at the effects of climate change, the health condition for recent por air quality in san francisco due to the fires ravaging the west coast staying inside with the windows closed. i currently live with my grandparents who have lived in

san francisco for 30 years. [inaudible] of all vulnerable people in this increasingly hostile world. [inaudible] thank you, supervisors, for taking up this important issue and considering the health and safety of our residents and climate change. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is daniel tejar d a. i -- tejarda. i'm going to break from my usually rundown of all the

systems that we think need to be improved in this passage. you can read the joint letter [inaudible] and also the hundreds of letters sent by constituents in the last week or so for that. i'm just going to tell you a story you've heard a few times but this is my version of it. i moved to san francisco six years ago having grew up as a long distance runner. i now have asthma. the recent poor air quality has confronted me with a future that i can't [inaudible] with the heat wave, my asthma and poor air, i have to run an air purifier and air

conditioning to keep my air clean. heat exhaustion respiratory complications, and trouble sleepgs are just a few of the things they'll be able to look forward to when they do. every foot of gas infrastructure creates a fire risk. every gas stove we allow for -- every home that's not electric ready is a child with asthma. every home built with gas is a heat exhaustion [inaudible] the time being to opt out of these choices has long since passed. [inaudible] we're counting on you. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. that completes the queue, mr. chair. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk, and thank you to all of the speakers and supervisor mandelman. as i said in the beginning, we

are going to land this plane. we've just got to figure out how to do it. we've got to figure out how to reach out to a number of communities, and thank you to the comments of the members of this committee, supervisor safai, and supervisor preston. i think in the beginning, the sponsor, supervisor mandelman, asked to continue this for two weeks. i actually think it's going to take a little bit longer than that, so supervisor mandelman, i would like to suggest we continue this to october 12, which is only one more week, which really should give us the time, and i'm doing this in concert with you as it relates to the chaninese chamber of commerce. the revelations around the building trades are now as of today, but i think another week

would benefit us -- well, they're new to me. i had not heard about that before today. as you know, i always seek the truth, so there you go. so having said that, i would like to suggest, with your concurrence, that we continue this three weeks to give us the space and time, particularly as it relates to the chinese american community in san francisco not only in my district -- in my district, as you know, supervisor mandelman, those issues are pretty solvable, but i think we still have outreach to do, and ms. raphael, if i pronounced that correctly, acknowledged that outreach did not happen. so that gives time for that,

and with respect to the department of the environment, and i meant no disrespect to you or supervisor mandelman, but when you're doing the outreach, and you a're getting ahead of the sponsor, your outreach has to be a little bit better and culturally competent. with that, supervisor mandelman, on the notion of extending this item three weeks -- and let me be clear, we're going to get this thing done. the amendments, when they come, are going to be deminimus, but having the respect to do real and meaningful outreach, even when we craft those amendments, is profoundly important. so before i hear from supervisor mandelman, to members of this committee,

supervisor safai, supervisor preston, the floor is yours in that order. >> supervisor preston: supervisor peskin, are you suggesting move the amendments and -- >> chair peskin: i'm suggesting we move the amendments as supervisor mandelman has suggested and continue the item for three weeks as opposed to two, and we meet every week. >> supervisor safai: allegedly. >> clerk: through the chair, october 12 is a holiday, so the next available meeting after the 12 would be the 19 of october. >> chair peskin: okay. allegedly means that october 12 is a holiday. what is october 12 -- oh, indigenous peoples day. got it. my bad. then, i'll say the 19, and that gives us a month for really

meaningful, robust community engagement and dialogue. and i don't want to put words in supervisor mandelman's mouth, and i think the conversation that we had with the chinese chamber was really productive. i think i was very clear that this is a societial imperative, but we do it in a way that is not embraced by communities, it's not going to end well, and that's the work that we have to all do together between now -- and i will make a motion, subject to more discussion, to take the amendments offered by supervisor mandelman and then make a subsequent motion to continue this october 19. >> supervisor preston: and i just would be interested to hear about the timeline from supervisor mandelman. my only concern is when we

convene, the additional amendments, could be pushing it out far more than a month. i'm amenable -- >> chair peskin: and we'll first hear from supervisor mandelman. i would imagine that any amendments that were made -- i wish it were the 12, but the 19 -- should the committee see fit to adopt the two motions that i already mentioned, they would actually not be substantive, and we can defer to deputy city attorney pearson, but those amendments would actually make the legislation less onerous, not more onerous. so i believe if we were to say that certain buildings in chinatown, like 772 pacific avenue could rebuild, that would not be substantive. >> supervisor preston: and with respect, we may be hearing from different folks.

you know, i'm hearing from a lot of advocates who, in recent days, are looking for things to be strengthened in certain ways, and it sounds like you may be hearing from a number of folks who want to narrow things. i frankly have no idea where that lands, and i just wonder if something shorter makes sense, and then further continuances if needed. but again, i would really defer to sponsor and to chair. >> chair peskin: mr. sponsor? >> supervisor mandelman: you know, my -- my approach has been is we should talk about it with many people as we need to talk about it with as long as we need to talk about it as long as we can get it done this year. our hope, what our sort of initial commitment to the environmental committee last year when we didn't do the ban

then and did the electric preference is we will try to get this done in the spring of 2020. of course conditions intervened, the world changed, and so frankly, i think it's been important to take a lot of time at -- you know, take as much time as we need at the board of supervisors. i do not have a problem with going to the 19 chblt. i suspect there will be amendments that might have to have it go a week or so longer. i don't have a problem with that. >> chair peskin: supervisor mandelman, in that spirit, and i say as the supervisor for chinatown, that everybody understanding that more amendments, one way or another, they're not on anybody's particular side are going to happen, and our collective desire it to have this be law

as of the first day of 2021, then let me withdraw my newest amendment, which i thought would be helpful, and let's create two weeks of space with a full acknowledgement that we're going to create more space thereafter, and that this is an ongoing discussion, and our collective goal and desire for what is truly a societial imperative will be done on or before the first day of january of 2021. so i will withdraw my -- sorry about the holiday -- concept and go back to your original notion of a two-week continuance, and let's use those two complicated weeks to try to build that support. so i'm totally down with two weeks continuance.

thank you, sir. >> supervisor mandelman: you know, and with regards to some of the other concerns, i think we can solve -- we certainly can solve the particular location in chinatown. i think we can do something perhaps broader. for some of the other issues that have been raised here, we are of course happy to continue talking with the trades. they have -- they did, you know, they did participate in the conversations in the spring. they did request by letter, which we can share, if we have not already, with your offices, but they would really prefer that san francisco wait on the state, and that we take action on a local ban after the state has figured out what it is doing on all electric. i don't think that we should do that, but i'm happy to continue to talk -- talking with them and making sure that their

feedback has been incorporated to the extent that it can be incorporated in the legislation, again, providing that we get it done this year. >> chair peskin: so supervisor mandelman, i know we get in trouble for san francisco exceptionalism, but generally, as goes our city, so goes the state, and occasionally, as the state goes, so goes the nation, so i -- i'm not -- i'm not waiting around for the state. i'm totally clear on that. i think we've got some work to do in our town, in our community with the chinese american community, with the restaurant community, and with the building trades, and yes, everything you just said is true and correct. i do want to say to the department of environment and miss raphael, talking to you, rather than your department and our people's tax dollars to the

elected decision makers, what we need is facts. so relative to facts, if there were the -- a waiver process for people who want to build restaurants in future new construction at the ground floor, how many b.t.u.s is that going to mean? if you can clarify that, that would be helpful rather than having your staff make the advocacy comments that i found to be remarkably inappropriate. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: just to add onto that point, what would also be helpful if there was a waiver process for restaurants and new construction and the person that was building the new construction, maybe there was a way to think about offsets for the rest of the building. maybe there's a way to think about commercial allowances for

restaurants, but then maybe the building has another way to offset its environmental footprint because i know natural gas is just punione as of it. just some other things to think about. i know you guys have put a lot of time and effort into it. supervisor, i'm sorry. i know you've made points, but i really want to underscore a point. i have great respect for everyone that called in today. i am absolutely committed to our environmental goals and reducing our carbon footprint, and no time more than now. i don't want to lose that in any way, shape, or form, and i support it 100%, but there has to be a conversation. and i know that we're talking about a smaller amount, compared to our existing

footprint, but i have to underscore that restaurants are a phenomenal part of san francisco's culture. they are the backbone of our mom and pop businesses. i represent so many of those business owners in my district. many in your district, supervisor peskin, many in your district, supervisor mandelman, and many in your district, supervisor preston. so many of these businesses are all over san francisco, and we have to take into consideration -- i will tell you, supervisor mandelman, and i appreciate your acknowledgement that as long as you want many conversations as long as we get through this by the first of the year, in my committee, [inaudible] we got it passed to the full board,

and then, it is a unanimous vote, and then, i think the same thing will happen here. we'll have multiple conversations, and think we're going to lock arms that will put san francisco at the forefront of the environmental movement, and it will have impact across the state and across the rest of the country. but i don't want to lose that impact. when i say impacts, it impacts the folks in chinatown. it impacts restaurants all over the city, and then, the construction industry, we'll hear more from them. as i've sat in this meeting, i've gotten some opinions from the construction industry that the cost doesn't go up, it goes down. i'd just like some analysis by going to another construction mode, does it