Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  October 4, 2019 7:00am-8:01am PDT

7:00 am
importantly, she has compassion. she cares about the plant. she cares about people. she is a native of san francisco and she cares about this city and what happens here. more importantly, she's a woman in a men dominated industry. i believe there should be room for voices of women to really speak to the issue of cannabis here in san francisco. all of these things have really contributed to some very special things that are happening at r norcal, where we have been able to get outside of the box and think of equity in a different fashion and it's given rise to things i'm encouraged about as the industry moves forward. i hope that you would support her candidacy as well for the cannabis oversight committee. i want to speak on behalf of all the women. they deserve to be heard just as
7:01 am
any other woman who has submitted an application for this committee. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here to speak on behalf of anna. i'm a long time resident and employee here at san francisco and an equity applicant. i'm here in support of my colleague, which i mentioned a moment ago as she seeks to become a member of the committee in seat 12 and seat 14. we worked together at norcal cannab cannabis. i am the primary point of contact for our delivery drivers. in addition with norcal allowing me to apply for this position and has helped me create a better opportunity for myself and my family. she is a strong female leader
7:02 am
with a great deal of experience in the industry and i believe she is experienced in exper tease and love for what she does will make her a valuable member of this committee in either seat 12 or seat 14. thank you for your time and you have a wonderful day. >> thank you so much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is amber morris. i'm here also for anna. i developed the first statewide regulations for cannabis cultivation. since leaving the state, i took a job with norcal, and the director of government affairs and worked with anna ray. it's a dynamic to work on the other side of the table. learning from someone that implements those regulations and can understand the pain point from the industry side.
7:03 am
i think particularly for seats 14 and 12, that her experience with not just knowing the laws and regulations, but also understanding the implementation process is very important. in addition to that, she already spoke clearly about her qualifications, but i like to add that she is very competent and capable in actually moving the agenda of this committee forward. so she's a clear communicator, both verbal and written, and i think you will need many people on the committee that can actually take the goals of the committee and move them forward. anna ray has the ability to do that. working for the government for so many years, there's a lot of committees that spin, and you need someone that can help identify what's needed and move it forward. so there's no doubt in my mind that she would do a great job on this committee and i appreciate you filling the seats and taking my comments into consideration. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker.
7:04 am
>> i'm here to support ms. parks for seat number 13. i'm an immigrant. i came here when i was 10, went to school here, and every single obstacle you guys talked about, i'm experiencing right now. ms. parks has helped me for some of those things. i think she's competent and aware, generous.
7:05 am
thank you. >> anyone other member of the public wishing to speak? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> i just want to thank everyone for coming. as supervisor ronen said, this is a really highly qualified applicant group. i was member of the rules committee before and we appointed many commissioners, advisory boards, and this by far has the most expertise. i means the incredible. this is the first round, i think of this body, meaning that we are just launching it now. we hope that it will advise the board of supervisors and also give us good recommendations, but also help us to perfect what we're doing here in san francisco to have the cannabis business be a robust viable
7:06 am
business here with meeting our equity goals too. i want to thank everyone for coming today and your willingness to be part of this movement that we're doing here in san francisco to make us better and actually to lead other cities in how we can do this through a really strict equity lens. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other comments? supervisor walton. >> i don't have any comments per se, but before we -- well, i guess i do have some comments. one, i want to thank everybody that applied as supervisor fewer stated. this is the first make up of this committee and of course this will be ongoing in helping us shape the future of what we do around equity as we move forward. i appreciate everyone for putting your name in the hat because that shows the dedication and the importance of how the community feels about this role. the one thing i do want to say
7:07 am
is that -- and i also appreciate everyone's excitement about diversity for this committee. i know i asked that question to everyone, so i'm asking that for seats 10 and 12, that we don't take action today. the reason for that is so we may have more time to conduct outreach and get a diverse sieve pool of applicants. we are charged with making sure this committee is equitable and diverse and we have the right type of participation there -- from everywhere. i would like for us not to take action on seats 10 and 12 this week and move it to next week or even the meeting after next week. >> okay. well since jennifer garcia wasn't able to join us and was the only applicant for seat 10, that makes sense. did any of my other colleagues
7:08 am
have any comments on supervisor walton's motion? no? okay. so, i just had a question for you supervisor walton. is there a particular type of diversity that you're looking for, that you don't see represented today? >> i didn't see one black candidate and that is very concerning to me. >> okay, fair enough. so supervisor walton has made a motion to continue items 10 and 12. >> we don't need a motion on that, you just don't need to fill those two seats at this time. >> got it. so with the remaining seats. i support that request supervisor walton. >> as do i. >> seems that supervisor mar
7:09 am
does as well. we'll take the remaining seats. supervisor fewer, i just have tremendous respect for the amount of work you have put into this effort. you created the legislation to get us here in the first place. i know you and your staff have spent a tremendous amount of time. we have an impossible choice in front of us today because we are filled with unbelievable, overqualified applicants for every single seat. i'm wondering if you have some thoughts for this committee, given your tremendous work on how you would like to see this moved forward. >> yes, i would like to mention that when the board and i was newly on the board as with supervisor ronen, we were tasked with developing a program and i have to say that most of us didn't know what we were doing.
7:10 am
we have this office of cannabis that actually we haven't heard regularly from and we also don't have actually recommendations on how to make it better. we have only heard frustration from many of the applicants, not really coming to us and saying these are the things that we could do, that amendments we could make it easier for applicants and actually to have a more diverse pool of applicants, but also as our equity applicants. i think it's been frustrating for all of us. we grappled with geographic equity and our own neighborhoods. also, we have heard from parents about the regulation and heard from communities about the fact that they are anti-cannabis. so i think that as legislators, what we're looking for here is some oversight on the office of cannabis, not to really regulate
7:11 am
them, but actually to give suggestions on what the legislative branch can do to actually advise the office of cannabis on how to address some of these issues from people who actually have real on the ground experience in doing this. we, as legislators, do not. none of us, as far as i know, own a cannabis business. i don't even know which ones have used cannabis. so, i think we are starting from a place with no expertise. i want to say personally, i just through stuff on the wall, and if it stuck, it was in the legislation, not knowing what we were doing. we're looking towards this group, this body to give us some expertise, on the ground expertise. we want to open this up for small business owners too, to have this opportunity to say how do we launch. we know that we have had an
7:12 am
industry here that many people have profited from and made good money on and we don't know about this expansion of it. in every neighborhood, to have it, you know, legal for recreation use, and my apologies for saying black market. i do know people who have left the permitted process of a retail space and they identify it as the black market. i will say private market. we will say private market now. i do think that is a concern and that growing number is a concern. because actually, they are able to get great product at a much reduced price, right? even ones that have gone through testing. if we want this to be a business where we can say to the public, this is a business that not only
7:13 am
is, you know, regulated well, but also is safe. it gives equitable opportunity to many people, i think that we are going to be depending on this body to give us that exper tease. i also to say this is a very, very hard decision for -- i'm not a voting member on this committee, but for this committee to have. i think personally when i'm looking at is opening this opportunity to get more voices at the table that haven't been at the table traditionally and also how can we help launch this from the growers, the cultivators, all the way to the retail. so, what we can do at the state level is to push through legislation. i want to thank everyone for being here. i know that we are looking for diversity within our pool. i think that because this is a
7:14 am
business that has been dominated mainly by men and we are focusing on bringing other voices in so we're very, you know, we think that's super important. we also think that we are looking at people also who have been in the industry for a long time, but we are also trying to wait for people trying to come into the industry. i don't know if that discussion helps at all, but what i really wanted to say is thank you so much for your willingness to help us with this in san francisco, because san francisco, we think we can do it right. i don't think we have been doing it right. i think in san francisco, we can lead the way for other cities. thank you very much. >> so did you not have suggestions for the specific seat? you want to leave it up to the committee? >> well, i would actually defer to the voting members of this
7:15 am
committee, quite frankly. >> okay. supervisor walton, would you like to make a motion. >> yes, thank you so much. please forgive me if i accidentally mispronounced someone's name. so, i am pushing that we move forward the names of ali for seat number 8, aaron for seat number 9, doug for seat number 11, nina for seat number 13, burke for seat number 14, teresa for seat number 15, and sarah for seat number 16. >> i'm sorry, what was seat number 15? >> seat number 15, teresa foglio. >> okay. >> may i ask if you would repeat
7:16 am
seat 14. >> seat 14, burke hanson. >> sorry, just give me one minute here. this is a lot of seats at once. >> thank you chair ronen and supervisor walton for putting forward your proposed appointments to the various seats. i'm in agreement with all of your proposed appointments except seat 14. my preference is on jesse for seat number 14, given his extensive experience and expertise with cannabis law and regulation statewide and
7:17 am
locally. his direct experience facilitating hiring disadvantage community members by cannabis businesses and his very long commitment to ensuring equity and social justice, principles and practices, ensuring that these are essential in regulating the cannabis industry and i think mr. stout, we received broad support from his appointment from a range of stakeholders in san francisco. >> thank you. i too in agreement with seat, 8, 9, 13, 11, 15, and 16. i also was having a hard time deciding for seat 14 between jesse stout and anna grabstein.
7:18 am
who are both extremely qualified and have done so much in this industry. so what i will do then, given that there is support from two members of this committee for jesse stout, if you don't mind, if i would amend your motion, is that okay? or would you like to vote separately on each seat? or take 14 separately? >> i would agree with supervisor mar. we have some great candidates and if two members of the committee wants to support mr. stout, who i think is very qualified as well, i can amend the motion to include jesse stout for seat number 14. >> great. >> mr. clerk, is there clarity for the motion. >> can you repeat it to be sure. >> i have ali for seat number 8,
7:19 am
aaron flynn for seat number 9, seat number 11, i have doug block, for seat number 13, i have nina parks, seat number 14, i have jesse stout, seat number 15 i have teresa foglio and seat number 16, i have sarah. just to note, several of the seats have a waiver requirement. >> fantastic and can we take that motion without objection? without objection, that motion passes. >> i just want to note that the waiver requirement for teresa, nina, anna -- excuse me, my apologies.
7:20 am
and doug block is waved. >> thank you. in my excitement, i forgot to mention that in june, i move to oakland because i could no longer afford my rent in san francisco, so i too need a waiver. thank you. >> thank you. can we note that for the record? >> my apologies. could you note your name please? >> sarah. >> thank you. mr. clerk, thank you so much to everyone. you know, again this is the first of many opportunities to serve on this body and you are just an amazing community. thank you very, very much. mr. clerk, are there any other items on the agenda? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> and with that, the meeting is adjourned. [gavel] [♪]
7:21 am
7:22 am
7:23 am
7:24 am
7:25 am
7:26 am
7:27 am
7:28 am
7:29 am
7:30 am
>> supervisor peskin: good afternoon. welcome to the land use meeting for september 30th. i am aaron peskin. ms. major, any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the october 8 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. item number 1 is ordinance
7:31 am
amending the planning code to designate 2031 bush street, aka kinmon gakuen building, as a landmark under article 10 and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. major. before we introduce shannon ferguson from the planning department, i would like to be listed as cosponsor of this landmark designation. the case report was really a pleasure to read and very well done. and very edifying and of course, speaks to terrible parts of our american history and san francisco history relative, not only to executive order 9066, but acts of local governments, including our school board in
7:32 am
the day. it's almost the opposite of today's dynamics where we have a racist, xenophobic president and a very progressive school board. in those days, actually, teddy roosevelt i learned from the case report, was the one accusing, and correctly so, our school board of being in those days, xenophobic. and racist. the history of the building is amazing from 1926 and even on the site prior to 1926. and i was also learned things about the japanese-american community in san francisco that i didn't know. always thinking that the japanese-american community was in japantown and the western addition, but did not realize that the district that i represent, chinatown, actually has a proud japanese-american history as does the district
7:33 am
that supervisor haney represents in the south of market. so that was -- anyway, it was a great case report. i commend it to anyone. i want to thank former landmarks board member, former board of appeal member, and planning commission sue guya, who took the time to note a handful of very small typographical things that need to be fixed in the case report. he should know, because he worked then and now in the company. thank you, for your very, very careful reading. i read the case report, but did not find those. so thank you, bill, if you're watching. and with that, i would like to ask ms. ferguson from the planning department to come up and present on item number 1. and we are joined by vice chair safai.
7:34 am
>> good afternoon. i'm here today to present the historic preservation commission recommendation to designate 2031 bush street as article 10 landmark. the building is located on bush street in the japantown and is known as the kinmon gakuen build. it was part of the civil rights project which was funded by an underrepresented community grant by the national park service. they unanimously recommended designation on april 3, 2019.
7:35 am
constructed in 1926, the kinmon gakuen building represents only one of four purpose-built community facilities in japantown, whose construction was funded by and for the local american-japanese community. it was with the u.s. citizens of world war ii. at the home of the booker t. washington community services center, from 1942 to 1952 which provided the african-american youth with educational and recreational facilities. the period of significance for the building is 1926 to 1952. and the designation includes both exterior and interior
7:36 am
character-defining features. for over a century, the building has served as an important community anchor and gathering place. if designated, the building would be the first landmark in the city associated with san francisco's japanese-american community and the history of japantown in the western addition, which is one of three remaining japantowns in the country. the department has determined that it meets the requirements. the hpc and the planning department recommend landmark designation. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions. >> supervisor peskin: seeing no questions from my colleagues, i do also want to thank him forgetting this on the work -- for getting this on the work program and this building be added to our list of landmark
7:37 am
buildings in the city and county of san francisco. with that, i open up to public comment. commissioner? >> thank you very much, president peskin, supervisor safai, supervisor haney. thank you very much for talking about the history and the very short period of time about japantown's existence. yes, it's south park in supervisor haney's district. yes, grand avenue between bush all the way up to california street in chinatown. and, yes, in the western addition, we used to call it the fillmore, ja japantown. from our perspective, kinmon gakuen was a place to hang out.
7:38 am
you went to school all day and at 2:30 when you got out, mama said you have to go to the japanese school. so all of us had to go down there. it was okay because it ended 6:30 and then you went to the basement and judo. on the weekends, it was a movie theater. we used to call it -- sword fighting movies, friday, saturday, sunday. it was a social network of our community. also for myself when we talked about the days of infamy in the exhibit, in washington at the smithsonian. when we first went there, the first sight was a replica of the kinmon gakuen, where the japanese-americans assembled. we ask for your approval and we appreciate it, but there are
7:39 am
folks in the community now that try to deny that the concentration camps existed. there are challenges we even lived there. some of this is going to come to light, because we have a sign that is coming up and there are individuals fighting us with the semantic and the word concentration camps. >> keep going, you don't have to wrap up, if you want to keep talking. >> basically, what i was trying to say, folks think that japantown is a four-block area. but as you know it was extended to the fillmore area as well. it's important to us because again the painful relationship of what happened. it's interesting that only now in this time in the year of our lord, 2019, that we're talking about the first historical building preserved for the japanese-american community of san francisco. the gateway for japan in terms of this nation.
7:40 am
thank you very much, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner. it is amazing to me to hear that there are deniers of executive order 9066. there are many people alive who were gathered up by united states military troops and sent to the racetrack in san matteo county before they were put on rail cars and sent to a spot in the desert north of delta, utah, which is now a historic site. i attended the ribbon-cutting of the museum in delta the summer before last. it is all there. it's documented by a photographer, dorthea lang. it is in the archives of the united states of america and it happened and it's shameful. >> can i ask through the chair, the commissioner a question? just for clarity, commissioner,
7:41 am
just so we know, so we're ready for it. is it about the word concentration or people that are denying it even happened, or is it people concerned about this particular site being folded into the history or recognizing part of the history of japantown. just a little clarity on that. >> to be clear on it, it's one particular individual. i'm not going to say a group of individuals. that one individual might have folks that feel that way, but in terms of your remarks, it's all of the above. denial of the concentration camp experience. for us, the darkest day in history. we have to look at the truth in the terms of our own well-being and historical basis, how then can we improve ourselves. for my mother and father, brother and sister, it was a concentration camp. that garden is what we called
7:42 am
cottage row, but for years and years, because i live next to that, that park really didn't have any significance. today it's being dedicated. thursday at the park and recreation commission, that signage is going to be challenged. we hope that the park and recreation commission has approved that very word in terms of what is the truth for us in the community. so i hope i answered your question, supervisor, but, yes, it's really, really a terrible, angry thing to have that kind of emergence of discrimination, racism in the city and county of san francisco at this time. i'm not surprised by the atmosphere that is among us to promote those kinds of ideas. but we in the japanese-american community, and the biggest appointment, we did not -- point, we did not do anything wrong. there was no due process, 120,000 japanese-americans on the west coast.
7:43 am
>> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioner. >> supervisor peskin: subject of very famous supreme court decisions. >> supervisor safai: i was going to say, both supervisor haney and i were an event where the daughter of the landmark case was there. the daughter was there and she spoke extensively on that and what that meant. and reminding people that these were american citizens that were, in many cases, treated that way. and we always need to remember that. history is extremely important. i want to thank you for coming out and sharing that today. thank supervisor brown for her support on this particular historical significant building. >> good afternoon, chair, supervisors. i'm one of the board members of kinmon gakuen. for the reason that children of japanese descent were
7:44 am
discriminated in public schools, kinmon gakuen was founded in 1910. they rented a small house at 2301 bush street and operated there until 1921 when the new building was constructed at 2031 bush street. that is its current location. the school's operation, as mentioned, was interrupted by the war and due to the hysteria brought on by the war, the u.s. government seized the building and used it as a processing center for the hundreds of japanese-american families that lived in japantown or san francisco before they were sent to the concentration camps. as supervisor peskin mentioned, it was used by the booker t. community center after the war. the building was returned to kinmon gakuen, and resumes operations, but found it
7:45 am
challenging because most of the families did not return after being incarcerated. but they persevered. in the late 60s and 70s. japantown was hit with urban renewal, that forced removal of many residents. this made it very difficult for the school to operate, but the organization again% veered and in order to offset the operating costs, the auditorium was used as a movie theater for a short period, until enrollment increased. the school is graced by visits from japan's royal families on three separate occasions. as a historic and cultural resources to foster the u.s. and japan relations. this is the reason we're asking you to approve the landmark designation. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. just because i had a second to look it up on the internet, it's
7:46 am
kind of interesting, if you think about our chief executive in the united states today, but it was actually george herbert walker bush who apologized 45 years later to the japanese and it was president ronald reagan who signed the reparations bill into law. with that, any other members of the public for item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. i assume that you will update the case report with the things that the commissioner has given us. and i would like to make a motion to send item 1 to the full board with positive recommendation. thank you, again. we will take that without objection. the next item. >> item 2 is ordinance amending
7:47 am
the environment code to require commercial parking lots with more than 100 parking spaces to install electric vehicle charging equipment, amending the police code. >> supervisor peskin: i am a proud cosponsor of mayor breed's legislation before us which would require commercial parking lots and garages with more than 100 parking spaces with electric vehicle charging infrastructure. i will not regale you with why this is so important, but with that, turn it over to charles sheahan from the department of environment. >> thank you. san francisco department of the environment. i'm going to walk you through a short presentation and then happy to take any questions after. can we have the slides, please? okay. electric vehicle charging and commercial parking facilities.
7:48 am
this would amend the environment and police codes. the city has a goal of net zero emissions city-wide by 2050. we're on track, making progress, even though the population has grown 22% since 1990. our economy has expanded by 166% since 1990. emissions are down by 36%. so while that is good news, emissions are down, there are still emissions that are left. you see our emission pie chart. of course on the right, the biggest slice of the pie, almost 50% is transportation. transportation generates 46% of the city's emissions today. the largest generate other of emissions -- generator of emissions. let's dive deeper into the transportation part of the pie. you can see, we've analyzed offroad equipment, ships and boats, but the largest generator is the private cars and trucks
7:49 am
that you see on the road today. what we're really talking about is tailpipe emissions. eliminating those tailpipes is going to improve the air we breathe locally and reducing emissions in the transportation sector, more than just a check box in the emission reduction schedule. we like to check the boxes, but it's about cleaning the air and making san francisco a more livable city all. you can see the need for that on the slide. highest concentration of particulate matter is the corridors and those run through vulnerable communities. these communities are impacted by gasoline and diesel-powered cars and switching to clean electricity is going to improve the air around those corridors. we know what we need to do.
7:50 am
it's the how that is a little more challenging. we need to mode shift and fuel switch. we need to reduce the number of vehicles operating on the roads. that meanings getting people on bikes, sidewalks, or in public transit. that is the core of the transit-first policy. it's designed to reduce congestion and emissions. today, we surface passed the -- surpassed the goal of 50%. we're shooting for 80. and while we're mode shifting and getting cars off the road, the cars still on the road, they need to be electrified. we need to get them off gas and diesel and on to renewable electricity. i like to say that the program we enjoy today is more than just for your home, but for your vehicle and anything else that it can power. to that end, the mayor passed an authored an easy road map this year and it calls for goal of
7:51 am
100% electrification by 2040 and identifies specific actions, public awareness, incentives, charging infrastructure. the electric grid, medium and heavy duty vehicles and emerging mobility. i mentioned charging before, because one of the key barriers in the city, one of the key barriers to full electrification of our transportation system is access to charging. we live in a dense city. two-thirds of the residents live in multi-units dwellings. it's hard to install charging infrastructure in those multiunit dwellings, as opposed to a single-family home. or you can just come home and trickle charge off the wall. that is very hard to do in multiunit family dwellings, especially the older ones. if we're go to facilitate, we
7:52 am
need more charging and more confidence in the public charging network here in the city. we have been working on it. this is not our first ordinance related to the issue. we have the e.v. ready ordinance. it requires 100% of parking spaces and new construction to be e.v.-ready. that's been on the books for a couple of years now. we're taking care of new buildings being built. what we're focusing on is existing buildings. so here's the current charging network. 750 public charging ports throughout the city. those e.v. registration numbers, 10,000, that's based on october 2018 figures. so when the figures come out october this year, we think the number will be closer to 20,000. maybe even 25,000, 30,000 registered e.v.s in the city. so people are adopting e.v.s, but based on the 18 numbers, we only have 27 public charging
7:53 am
ports per registered e.v. even though this ordinance we're talking about today targets the private sector, we're already under way with an initiative in the public sector. public sector and private sector. so the city has opened up 38 public municipal-owned garages and invited e.v. developers to come in and develop charging stations. we've gotten proposals for every one of the 38, so we're working hard on the municipal and the public side. what will this ordinance do? it's going to target commercial garages and parking lots with 100 or more park spaces, that's approximately 300 sites in the city. it's going to require level-2 charging stations at 10% of those parking spaces. or a functionally equivalent number of fast chargers.
7:54 am
and the compliance date is january 1, 2023. it requires good faith analysis of technical feasibility and ties the permit process to the permits issued by sfpd for commercial parking facilities. >> hold on. can you go back? is this existing garages? all of the garages in the city with 100 or more parking spaces? >> correct, existing. >> you say you tie it to the permitting process, most times they're already permitted, so how are you going to deal with the existing? >> they renew each year. they put in the paperwork, get approved. so there might be a tweak or two to make to the paperwork showing they're in compliance.
7:55 am
>> supervisor safai: part of their annual renewal, we'll get them then? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: got it. thank you. >> okay. so there is also a waiver process. it focuses on three categories. one, is there sufficient electrical capacity? do they need to install a transformer, which is cost prohibitive and challenging. if so, that could generate a waiver. two, is there infeasible site conditions? do they need to raise the height of the ceilings, regrade the pavement. again, that can be challenging and generate a waiver. three, was there a good faith effort put in with at least two e.v. charging providers that was then declined because there could be no agreement at minimal or no cost. an example. if there is an existing parking
7:56 am
facility that is changing use and it's under way with the building and inspection team, going from a commercial parking facility to a commercial office building. or maybe the parking building is going to be demolished and in its place a residential building is going to be constructed, this is not an investment or attractive business case fort e.v. charging developers and parking facilities, so that could also generate a waiver. fairly simple. san francisco department of environment is going to administer the waiver process. and of course we're always looking for compliance. that's where we'll work with the san francisco police department who can suspend or revoke operating permits if there is noncompliance and of course, we can administer fines for noncompliance as well. i showed you this before. this is the baseline. this is where we are today. and this is the possible impact
7:57 am
and reach when you combine the municipal initiative with the potential for the ordinance. as you can see, there is lots of potential. it's a little more focused on the parts of the city with the most multifamily, multiunit dwellings. but it gives potential access to charging in other parts of the city as well. in addition to creating confidence with our charging network, we're also trying to bring e.v.s to those that aren't necessarily looking at buying an e.v. or don't think they have the means to buy an e.v. for example, we want to create an ombudsman position, a one-stop shop, work with grid alternatives and state agencies that provide grants, rebates and incentives for lower income communities to help them offset the cost.
7:58 am
we're going to work with city college like many cities do. there is the apprenticeship program with sfmta where students are trained for e.v. mechanics. we're looking for other criticla. we've been working with other cities around the region where the heavy duty trucks are going back and forth and working with bodies on grants, incentives and other initiatives to switch heavy-duty vehicles to electric vehicles. with that, i will take any questions that you may have. >> supervisor peskin: so, obviously i'm a cosponsor of this, but i would like to make one, on the record, clarification, which i know my staff talked to the department of environment staff. which is given the phase-in period and given that there is
7:59 am
actually thankfully less and less demand for parking, not to say that downtown is not congested, but we did hear from one garage owner who actually may be in the process of changing the use of a garage. and so what i wanted to do is be clear that it's our intent that amongst the considerations made by the director when exercising discretion to waive this requirement, that those kind of thoughts be inculcated in the thinking and that the consideration on page 7 of the legislation regarding technical feasibility and the third regarding financial viability, be addressed appropriately and the regulations. and to that end, what i wanted to do was add a little bit of language that is not uncommon
8:00 am
that would allow this board of supervisors to review the regulations and reject them for modify them by ordinance within a time frame of 60 days from when the director delivers those. and this is actually a template of what i might do in the ordinance. i want to put that on the record. is that your understanding, charles? >> yes, i've seen the proposed amendment and staff is comfortable with the language. >> supervisor peskin: good. the other question i had, was not just on the commercial side, but the residential side. we're developing and in some cases have developed very large residential complexes that have garages over 100 -- i can think of at least one in my district and there is parkmore and one in supervisor yee's district. is there any movement afoot to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on