And it was a Third Party Operator that would then lease to another fleet or users. And then we have had 34 letter of determination requests on this question. What this would use be. It was a reason why we need it to define the uses and all of those situations it was a Third Party Provider look to develop these charging sites and then lease them over time to different fleets or organizations. I see, thank you. It looks like i hope that the Planning Department and staff account work with the experience of this legislation in terms of seeing those trends and how work with that with the supervisor. Another question is about the pdr replacement requirement. My question in here is that San Francisco is not a big city. I know we always Say Something about replace am of things but when we are talking about land, im just wonder happening, do we have a pipeline of pdr replacement . How do we than we do have lands for a pd rushgs replacement . Hi. Good afternoon, director of city wide policy. Pdr is a big and complicated issue. We have been working on it at least since 2008 eastern neighborhood plan where we went through the space needed and did rezoning. How much pdr space would be lost. It was and calculated about 3 penalty 5 million square feet of pdr space would be lost that has happened by 2020 and have a Strong Demand for pdr space. Pdr in construction land use types use a combination of indoor and out door space in the building and a working space empploys people in the outside the job are cristial to San Francisco emergency response. Food distribution and Utility Service and jobs that you dont need an education for. And compared to other industries pdr employs more people color,im guarantees with fewer barriers. We feel the space has been shrinking. We are working with a big are change to the controls we expect to bring before you soon. That would doll a few things including a pdr funds so that if there was a replacement requirement you pay out of that. And then there could be space created. Well update the Industrial Design guide lines and evaluates an office pdr and mapping the transportation use related that with a freight map and transportation element. In this case, the and adding on the pdr with the ev thinking about what happens in our remaining lands that is important tong about how critical the lands are. And of if we wanted be fair to the ev fleet charging users who are seeing and monitoring this ordinance before you today and as it goes through they may think they not when controls are and in back and fleet replacement requirement and change the fee and surprised the application has a higher fee this is providing their notice to the fleet charging uses this work is part of a big are body of work in process near years went city and it is important city policy thank you for that. And i hope the department is working with the board of Supervisors Office on this as limp i think that is a big question for me as of course in the central soma there is an initialive. My plat question is racial social equity argument. I want to expand on how we define that. One thing is like it could harm, there is like initial hunch for me that the ev could harm the transit use. And another thing i think was part of the state proposition as well is who are using the ev chargers. I feel we dont have much analysis as to who are going to use the ev you know again there is we have analysis on the jobs that you know proposing but in terms of like who are going to be using evs and again like the impact on transit. Im very much proponent of people using transit. Students learn how to take muni bus and encourage the trains. That is like in terms of how we make an argument and racial social equity is through not just in terms of the jobs but who are the users . Who are we trying to people use ev . Those are my comments thank you. Commissioner koppel . I typically do following firefighter all of these Energy Topics and generations. Solar pv and energy storage, ev charging and a fan of mass electric transportation here in the city. But also i think our speaker sum today up best we need to make sure clean transportation is available for all of San Francisco. Thanks to staff for your work. We heard this a couple times gone back and forth. In support of it today and looking to see this move forward so we get more evs on the road. Thank you. Commissioner reese . I want to point out the things i did appreciate and the section the way it would be in terms of implementing section 303cc things the commission should consider when evaluating fleet charging use. And general low hoping that we can add language in terms of ecquit and he encourage disbursement of the locations across it is city so we dont see them in krons traited areas. Could staff speak to adding language on geographic equity . The adopted ordinance requires annual reporting and part of what we have been collaborating with sfmta on is what sorts of indicators to better understands the affects of the fleet on the transportation network. To your point upon about ensuring their geographically disbursed prosecute meeting equity that he is manage we can include to come back to the commission and may be the board with recommendations for if changes to the ordinance that would address any inequityys in the projects locateed the zas point we had a few mrksz 5 or more. They are locate instead downtown areas. We are open to the language that you would like to see in terms how we asetsz the cu and we think that would be well informed by analysis at the sfmta. Thank you. Will distribution of the site and the comment that commissioner imperial was picking up on where are the vehicles going to pick up ride exerts drop them off. Im concerned if not where theyre going to recharge. Come impacts most community the pdr tendses to be concentrated was there an analysis of the accomplices to be permitted in terms of the existing parking lot type use do we have a sense how many and where they are located and place we will permit if the board were to approve that. Where folks ago we will see a rush to the places for applications and then as the vehicles recharge the neighborhoods are impacted by that recharging traffic and pick up traffic. So. Can you address that. I can address half of what you said not all of what you said there are unknowns here i would like to address what commissioner ruiz said. The dialogue the commissioner is having now is exceed amming important and appreciate and part of what you are considering are cus for the ones that conscience for the ones that need cus. Sto so if the commission would like to recommend a new criteria for the c u consideration this includes racial and social equity when something is before you staff will be talking to you about the racial and social equity impacts of location you can suggest that to the board that will be a new cu criteria if the board accepts your idea this. Is in your power today to recommend to the board for their action. There is a lot we dont know and the board and mayor did do a lot of negotiation with not only the fleet charging industry but also concern public. For the most part that is why we are not recommending changes to where the zoning where permitted or cu because there has been alost negotiation outside of staff involve am. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. If i understand the staff report correct low. Theory is if we get too tough on this in order to accomplish if our goals and too taoist criteria 2 challenging it ends up turning dpoun every project or if our fee in the transportation fee we come up with is too high if a study supports it or if the pdr replacement reporter is impossible to fulfill it is challenging we have the companies doing fleet charging in locations and get off the impactless. What you are trying to do is instructor a balance between how far we go in regulating this to address occurrence and not go so for we have all of the impacts and none of the benefits is this accurate. Nothing is quite perfect but everything is balanced against each other . Thats correct. There is a market here and there is service this is want to serve this market. If the present it or revving lit it to the extent that it makes sense yes, we expect they go to across the county line. I agree with commissioner koppel im supportive of transit, i believe we have a language way to get to a system that functioned the way we typeset and the meantime we are encouraging torn switch to electric vehicles and to do this in that case we neat fleet charging and like it in the city so we get the advantages that in ordinance tries to accomplish. Im in favorite ordinance as written. I will make a motion i move to approve as proposed with staff recommendations. Second. I see commissioner. I see you commissioner moore others have their hands up i will go to you next. Its all right. I will make a comment first and i will call on you in a mobile home. Can staff speak to the analysis that was included in our packet regardingly the fee. We heard from the industry that there is concern around the feet concern i share have the ordinance trying to push for getting electric vehicle adopted quickly. Having some in the city and concern the fee is too high how you are thinking about the information that came become in the memo from urban economics. The time of the nexus update we did a ministudy to see what the how many motorized trips we can expect from the uses and when fee the maximum fee. That is to show there is definitely a higher fee that would prefleck the impact this is is not fee we think is feasible. That is from further study. Commissioner moore . The comment about geographic equity is important. However without having discussed with the it is not full to approve something over recommend something this it is not propose in the front of us today. The other comment is asking mr. Roger, with experience depletion of pdr space. Whenever we are having office or whatever it is replace pdr the amount of replacement is never 1 to 1. How would you seat quotient for replacement with vehicle vehicle charging stations . Thank you so much, commissioner. And consultation with the za the fee range the replace am requirement ranges and can be up to 1 to 1 when the replacement is provided it is what we seen multistory buildings. A lot there is limited land for pd rushgs it is ability to create more space for replacement exist in multistory buildings much of the pdr lands are low are rise development. That is okay. I was hoping that in the motion we could include the suggestion of the criteria to for the commission to consider. Just with the questions and comments by commissioner imperial and moore. Had me thinking more about the replacement of pdr. So i want to just put this out there. Okay. Maker of the motion open to adding a suggestion that the board consider an additional criteria . Yes. I have a question for staff. Does the board do what we do consider it with the legislation before it adopts in. Criteria to come back versus to practice. You are looking at geographic equity where are they located. Are they equally sdrnlted across the city. That is broader. So mrs. Rogers said you can consider that i note that the Zoning Districts where this is conditionally permitted tend to be geographically distributed. C2 and pdr that does in the mean they will come back they will be proposed equal low in the districts. You can add that as a potential condition. Criteria. What ofst language you like to propose . In the projects come different commission, to include geographic equity as a consideration of approval. I think it would be geographic equity of the distribution. The process i see this and i see that as we get more projects before us, if there is an analysis saying, now this is here like our cannabis legislation. We are seeing where they are as time goes on instead of where is this one located we are seeing the distribution as we anticipate more of them. That is i dont know if it is a criteria seems like a point analysis. Wonder how we phrase that . The impelementation perspectist first mrukz see i dont know how we will analyze direct your attention for number one and may be not 2. What we could do if this helpful is we could include a mapful so when you get packets. Time guess on you see where the dots are playing out and may be a certain mass you hit a moment you say, hey. You know can we take a look where they are landing and you can propose differing legislation. We can build a story through that geographic representation it may be easier. Because it is somehow hitting that threshold unlike cannabis that has a strict. I think make sure we might get to the point we say we cant approve there are many concentrated in this area we will approve another somewhere else because it is not. The typical cu include necessary and desirable. There are perspectives if there is a mass and geography we dont need additional you leverage the criteria it say this is no longer necessary and desirable at this location for this proposal because of this monopoly we see in front of us that are concentrating. We have to the in our Kit Available and it it is may be on us to make sure we give the data as the projects come forward you have can have the conversationless. Wade, Transportation Team manager. Were touchod 2 of the 3 points the last point i will make the geographic equity. I think a point for analysis there is a difference where the site is located and the trips that are generated versus who uses the service. The latter may be harder given when we said where the terrorisms go. Fleet charging may be distributed does not mean the users are distributed throughout the staechl something we consider as we consider cites over time yoochl mr. Ylang. Thank you. I wanted to add i think the issues that staff brought upper very helpful in terms of both the discretion the commission has under 303. And also as a matter of process. I want to be clear what the commission is doing or plan to do. To be clear if you are proposing to let board include a geographic criteria, that they could then introduce at land use, but not coming back here. Or if you want to see and to be very clear in your motion. If you do include a geographic consideration that you as a commission would weigh in on that policy. I would be satisfy federal there is a way to make noted of our upon concern about geographic distribution as a commission we want staff to bring that to us each time and cumulatively as we make action. I. To weigh inform i think the intent of geographic equity segood sends this over with this recommendation. I think if the board of supervisors or the writeers of the legislation thought they would go to plans and only determine this may be too many i think is exact low where we leave ourselves vulnerable. We all know that charging stationless will be attracted to inexpensive land and pdr land is far less. In downtown locations. Im concerned the impact will be weighted toward pdr yours if you know where they are. For this reign reason im hesitant, i like the idea of geographic equity tow use that as something to send long for the board of supervisors without us having proper guidance. I have confidence in the staff it would bring a lot of perhaps more conversation in the Planning Commission and how we really analyze this. Put to the board the discussion about the geographic equity as part of a recommendation. However it would come become to planning is that what i understand in terms of us . In you are clear in your motion that you are concerned about this issue, you would like to see future legislation. May be kg suggest the board introduce future legislation that addresses the issues you are not recommending this you are recommendation does in the include the any future amendments at this time. Related geographic. Good idea in the future and the other option to say, we actually recommend it with the staffs maams and further amendment by this body to say x, y or z is when we give language for today. Commissioner diamond. Id like to keep my motion the way it was. Go with the staffs recommendation i feel like this issue. Geographic is one naneeds to be considered over time it is important i agree with the concern feels like we have a tool in 303 to deal with it initially. And as we see what happens we may want to propose legislation outside we are the ones seeing the case. Rather than the board develop it on its own at this point in time. I like to stick with the original motion which is staffs recommendation. With the various changes staff proposed i think as we do this applications we say may be one or two interested parties will learn from those and i think also be getting not when we need in the statute but what information and data we need to receive to evaluate the proposal can be done outside of changing the legislation and can be practice in terms of how we process the applications. I upon dont see other commissioner hands. Indeed. Commissioners there is a motion nahas been seconded to approve, commissioner braun. Why aye commissioner ruiz. No. Commissioner diamond. Aye commissioner imperial no commissioner koppel. Aye. Commissioner moore. No. And president tanner aye that motion passes 4 of this 3 with commissioners ruiz, improll and moore against. Commissioners that will place us offol item 7. Case 201900 four 4879 the water front Resilience Program this is an informational presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners. President tanner. Lilly planning staff. We are happy to be here to present an over view of the water Front Program. Im joined by our form are planning colleague adam barrett now at the port leading this work. The Planning Department engaged with the program participating in conversations and meeting with focus around land use. Preservation, urban design, water front access and equity the department and commission had a history with addressing Climate Change and Sea Level Rise. I am new to the topic im joined by an maria roj and Danielle Knoll could not be here today. Our work including working with agencies to understand the Science BehindSea Level Rise. We review large projects to ensure they are a part of the project like mission rock and pier 70. And then leading Neighborhood Strategies the department expanded the review to look at a broad are neighborhood adamtation strategy. Mindful to lead with equity started with the first plan in 2019. And that strategy was befor