Good afternoon sf.citi members
I’m writing to provide you with legislative updates from last week as Supervisor Mar introduced the Private Sector Military Leave Pay Ordinance and the Planning Commission heard Supervisor Peskin’s duplicate EV legislation.
Supervisor Mar’s ordinance is currently under the 30-day rule at the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. The Supervisor commented that reserve personnel often serve on an on-call basis, which means they may need to temporarily take time off on short notice for training or to help with emergencies. As a result, many reserve personnel struggle with income or job loss. Recognizing the 2,000 San Franciscans who serve as reserve officers in the Army and National Guard, the Supervisor noted that this legislation is critical to protecting them from financial loss during their time of service.
Then for the EV legislation, the Planning Department provided four recommendations to modify the ordinance for Commission consideration and adoption which are listed below. These recommendations were adopted 4-3 with Commissioners Braun, Tanner, Koppel, and Diamond voting in favor and Commissioners Imperial, Ruiz, and Moore voting in dissent.
EV LEGISLATION
Planning Staff Recommendations
- Remove proposed CU Criterion 1 and proposed CU Criterion 3.
-
- (1) The proposed Fleet Charging use will not induce demand for low occupancy vehicles in highly congested areas or in transit-rich areas (p.15 packet).
-
- (3) If the vehicles accessing the proposed Fleet Charging use are owned by one ownership entity, that the ownership entity establishes that it has secured sufficient parking spaces for vehicles when not in operation within San Francisco or adjacent counties (p.15 packet).
- Principally Permit Fleet Charging in PDR districts, as specified in the recently approved ordinance (i.e., if the existing use is a Private Parking Lot or Vehicle Storage Lot, except for PDR-1-B) and ensure that Fleet Charging uses that displace PDR uses are subject to a PDR replacement requirement. Conditionally allow Fleet Charging with proposed criterion 2 in some use districts, as specified in the recently approved ordinance.
- Add new Planning Code requirements for Fleet Charging.
- Prohibit new curb cuts for Fleet Charging on protected pedestrian-, cycling, and transit-oriented street frontages
- Require some projects to prepare and implement a driveway and loading operations plan
- After additional study, update the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) to include impact fee categories for “Fleet Charging” and “Parcel Delivery Service”.
Discussion & Key Takeaways
Discussion by Commissioners focused generally on staff recommendations and issues of equity, land use, and industry trends.
In response to questions from Commissioner Imperial regarding the difficulty in analyzing, monitoring, or enforcing requirements associated with Criterion 1 (the proposed Fleet Charging use will not induce demand for low occupancy vehicles in highly congested areas or in transit-rich areas), staff explained that the City does not have the ability to track where vehicles go, as TNCs only provide data to the state, which regulates them.
Commissioner Imperial also asked if Planning had started seeing trends in companies trying to secure more vehicle parking spaces that could otherwise be used for higher and more desirable uses, as indicted and noted as a concern for Criterion 3 (If the vehicles accessing the proposed Fleet Charging use are owned by one ownership entity, that the ownership entity establishes that it has secured sufficient parking spaces for vehicles when not in operation within San Francisco or adjacent counties), to which staff communicated that there have been applications and third party developers looking to lease these sites.
Concern was expressed around PDR replacement by Commissioners Imperial, Moore, and Ruiz. Specifically, PDR land use is precious and shrinking, which impacts manufacturing industries that typically employ underserved communities. Planning staff explained that they are working on solutions to preserve PDR land that will not create substantial barriers for fleet charging to expand in those areas.
Regarding equity concerns, Commissioner Ruiz suggested that the Commission should include a CU criteria that would consider geographic equity in site distribution for fleet charging throughout the City. However, the Commission ultimately decided not to include that as criteria at this time, but as something that they would analyze when a fleet charging project is brought before them. In the future, when they have more data to examine, they would consider adding it as a definitive criteria.
Furthermore, Commissioner Tanner inquired about impact fees and how staff has implemented feedback from stakeholders and considered information from a nexus study by Urban Economics (included in Planning packet attached). Staff explained that based on the impact, the City could be charging a higher fee, but wanted to come to a compromise to not overburden EV companies.
sf.citi member company Cruise provided public comment and opposed the proposed impact fee. Others who provided public comment included Mark Gleason with Teamsters Local Union 665, who supported a universal CU requirement for fleet charging, and SFMADE who spoke to the need to preserve PDR districts for manufacturing.
As a next step, this item will be heard at the Land Use and Transportation Committee. We will keep you apprised as it is calendared to be heard. Please find the corresponding Planning Commission Packet attached.
PRIVATE SECTOR MILITARY LEAVE PAY
Background
California law mandates that public employees on military leave are entitled to their regular compensation for the first 30 days of military leave. However, this compensation requirement is not required for military reserve personnel working in the private sector. This ordinance seeks to change San Francisco law to ensure that military reserve personnel will be compensated regardless of which sector they work in.
Changes to Current Law and Definitions
Currently, private employers are not required to pay military reserve personnel the difference between their private and military salaries when they are called for duty. This ordinance would amend the Police Code to include Article 33Q, which would require private employers with 100 or more employees to pay employees who are military reservists and are called for military duty the difference between their military salary and their salary as employees, for up to 30 days in a calendar year.
The ordinance defines an “Employee” as any employee of any Employer who works within the geographic boundaries of San Francisco, including but not limited to part-time and temporary employees, and who is a member of the reserve corps of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, or other uniformed service organization of the United States (p.3).
As defined in the legislation an “Employer” is any person, including corporate officers or executives, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of an employee and who regularly employs 100 or more employees, regardless of location (p.3-4).
The ordinance will become effective 30 days after enactment, which occurs when the Mayor signs it, the Mayor returns it unsigned, or the Board of Supervisors overrides the Mayor’s veto. Please find the legislation and the corresponding digest attached.
Thank you for your continued membership and let me know if you have any questions.
Zach
Attachments
Comments are closed.