Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Electrification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts sponsor amendments and continues all‑electric new‑construction ordinance one week
Summary
Land Use Committee heard hours of testimony for and against the proposed ordinance to require all‑electric new construction and voted to adopt sponsor clarifications, add non‑impairment language for development agreements, and continue the item one week to finalize restaurant waivers and other details.
The committee spent extensive time Oct. 19 discussing a proposal to require all‑electric power for new building permits filed beginning Jan. 1, 2021, with limited exceptions and an administrative process for waivers.
Sponsor Supervisor Rafael Mandelman described feasibility examples — including an affordable nine‑story project — and proposed two technical amendments: incorporate DBI administrative‑bulletin language to clarify feasibility and to prevent financial infeasibility from being used as a technical exception; and to reference DBI electric‑ready design guidelines. Mandelman also proposed a limited waiver path for restaurant cooking equipment after a transition period and a standard savings clause to avoid impairing existing development agreements.
Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Climate advocates, health professionals, the Sierra Club and many residents urged immediate adoption, citing climate urgency and health benefits. Labor representatives (California State Pipe Trades Council/UA Local 38 and other unions) warned the ordinance could displace plumbers and other trades and urged a just‑transition plan. Restaurant stakeholders sought clarity and an ongoing waiver process for commercial cooking that would be appealable. OEWD and the City Attorney’s Office explained concerns about multi‑phase development agreements (DA) and proposed grandfathering language for projects with approved phase applications to avoid unintended contract‑impairment claims; OEWD estimated such grandfathering would apply to roughly 4,600 of about 46,000 units in DA pipelines.
After questions from Supervisors Safaei and others and legal input from City Attorney staff, the committee adopted the sponsor’s proposed non‑substantive amendments and voted to continue the ordinance one week to allow stakeholders and departments to finalize language for waivers, transformers in public rights‑of‑way and development‑agreement clarifications.
