Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Readiness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts amendments to EV readiness ordinance, agrees to one-week continuance for follow-up
Summary
Supervisor Katie Tang and SF Environment presented an ordinance to require electric-vehicle charging readiness in new construction and major renovations; the committee adopted staff amendments (including limiting a second 10% flexible requirement) and continued the item one week for follow-up with stakeholders.
The Land Use Committee on April 10 heard presentations from Supervisor Katie Tang and San Francisco Department of the Environment staff on an ordinance to amend the San Francisco Green Building Code to require electric-vehicle (EV) charger infrastructure in new buildings and major renovations.
Supervisor Katie Tang described the measure as intended to "lead the charge" on EV adoption by preparing new construction for future demand. Debbie Rafael (Department of the Environment) framed the ordinance within the city’s long-term climate goals and said two commissions (Building Inspection Commission and Commission on the Environment) unanimously supported the proposal.
Technical framework: Barry Hooper (SF Environment) explained the ordinance’s technical core: sizing electrical service to support simultaneous Level 2 charging for roughly 20% of parking spaces; requiring 10% of parking spaces to be "turnkey" (a full 40-amp, 208-volt circuit to the individual parking space); providing sleeves or conduit for remaining spaces to allow future rewiring; and a $400 per-parking-space cap on utility upgrade costs (consistent with the state green building code). Hooper summarized consultant cost scenarios: a 10-space project with two turnkey spaces would show an incremental cost of about $1,800 (≈$184 per parking space); a 60-space development scaled to the original proposal would be about $10,000 incremental (≈$175 per space), though staff revised some counts downward in the amendments.
Exemptions and flexibility: Hooper said the ordinance would not on its own trigger utility-service upgrades; projects could petition the Director of Building Inspection for hardship waivers or alternative compliance; and technical infeasibility or accessibility constraints could exempt some buildings or areas. Staff also proposed striking the previous flexibility requirement for a second 10% of spaces (the committee adopted that amendment).
Public comment and concerns: industry groups — including the Apartment Association and property owners — said outreach was inadequate and urged bifurcating the ordinance so it applied only to new construction; they warned mandatory retrofits could trigger costly electrical-service upgrades that might be passed through to tenants. Multiple clean-transportation and environmental groups (ChargePoint, Charge Across Town, 350 Bay Area, Center for Sustainable Energy, and others) urged keeping strong readiness standards and said the long-term benefits and alignment with state goals (including a governor-backed target for ZEVs) justify the ordinance.
Committee action: Supervisor Tang moved to adopt the amendments SF Environment had outlined and to continue the item for one week to permit follow-up with stakeholders. The committee adopted the amendments and continued the item without objection; staff will meet with stakeholders in the intervening week and return the ordinance to the committee.
Authorities and references: the presentation referenced the San Francisco Green Building Code, the state's PEV (plug-in electric vehicle) readiness elements (CalGreen), the city's climate targets (80% below 1990 levels by 2050) and regional/state targets for ZEV adoption; AB 32 and other regional planning efforts were mentioned by public commenters.
Next steps: staff will follow up with the Apartment Association and other stakeholders to review exemptions and language, and the committee will reconvene next week for final consideration.
