program. and i think the building in conversation for those conversions are preprop america buildings. >> okay. i think make a book mark around that subject as we think about that going forward if we will do anything to encourage conversions. thank you very much >> no problem. >> commissioner moore. >> i would support. commissioner diamond's request for know update to the commission regarding project that age, size, et cetera. age but i mean date of application. the second question is for mr. teague, please. 14, 999 square feet is a precise number for america a size of i building is that meant

symbolically for medium size and large scale building? mrs. hester cites enforce am i don't think a building can be examined for a discrepancy of one square foot to be small with large cap. i upon bed everwhenned she is asking. explain yet number is precisely expressed. >> sure. for the small cap has a lim of the which is 49, 999 square feet and some of our small cap projects propose up to that limit. those are new brekz comments. we have a number of projects that come in in the small cap in the low to mid dpourt's not propose to pushup against that limit. and any other thing this responsibility new construction versus conversion in an existing building if tell is new

construction and america the 49, 999 square feet that it is through the planning code definition. thatting be a conversion situation that is a significant expansion. if this did occur i'm not aware of that occurring to date. butt specific cap is just a product of the system divided between the 49ers and everything botch this. >> that was a helpful

explaination. thank you very much. >>mented responded? >> add 2 note in terms how we calculate. with the advent move to a digital plan check tool we kicked off during the pandemic. thes precise measurements it let's us validate a greater level of precision i wanted share that it has been a great new tool we have for doing calculations along these lines. in general this applies to everything. after the planning commission takes action. an applicant will file a building permit and verify the calculations they vo provide [speaking very fast] they are required route back if there is a deviation from when we approved. you know we understand mrs. hester's concern that is the typical protocol it goes and there it is a change in the plan we signed off and if there is a

change they are required to route them back they other checks and balances in the concern system. advent of moving to the digital plan check system. greater photocopy transparency and record keep nothing each revision. that gets submitted to the city and issued. in the past revisions get recycled and much trickier to fall. now there is an audit trail. . >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further move on to general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address commission up to 3 minutes and the number of speakers exceed

the 15 minute limit comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. if you are here come forward. call nothing remote press story 3 or raise your hand. seeing no persons in the chambers we will go to the remote callers when you have been unmuted that is your time to speak. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia, i sent an e mail with photos on election day. with the [inaudible] history. photos i showed last week on the over head. one sold last march of 22. for 7 million. the project on the left in the photos applied for permit in june 2012 and this permit issue in the may of 2014 and issue in the 2016.

it was a complaint filed with db oishgs in january of 2015 for work beyond the scope contending the build suggest demolished. and the case was quickly closed. dbi they were in compliance the matrix on the plans on the [inaudible] for 2013, do not conform toft section 317 templet. the vertical area calculations don't account for corrections made to the clarifications in the june upon 2020 section 317 limitation document. the project on the right in the photos applied permit the 7 million dollars one. september of 2014. it was issued in july 2017 and issued in 2018. and i will say that the 2

projects remember after the approximate december 2012, article that was sf weekly that is interesting i mentioned before am i hope you look at the e mail and pictures and send nothing 150 words. thank you, have a great day. booib. >> this is sue hester the problem that planning has is they don't have the same tracking able that dbi has. dbi has i different computer system. it is known for having a different computer system it has been abused by their planners. georgia mentioned in joe's article. that was one of the dbi fall offense. not the san bruno project issue of the continuance discussion but the other san bruno project

that it happened in 3-4 years ago they had a lot of construction because the person who signed off on the development never inspected the site. got money for charity contribution instead. so, our masking planning commission to set a joint meeting with the dbi commission not before christmas because christmas is ridiculous. some time after the first of the year to realist very much a discussion about what is happening at dbi in terms of having a compatible permits. so if they are planning the staff has the same abilities you see what is happening. and dbi and. not be distracted by, oh , e we have a process. . we upon don't have a process if

dbi is not it having the same procedures at the planning department has. and that is really important. so planning commission please insist on a joint meeting with the dbi they call at this time brick commission. after the first of the year, thank you very much. can you hear me. >> we k. >> if can i get a 30 second warning. i don't speak often before planning. i had a productive conversation? morning request lauren beast environmental planning staff. discussed a ceqa appeal i filed deemed untimely and issues regarding public access to ceqa materials on the department's website especially exemptions and administrative code chapter 31, general low 31 penalty 08.

i encourage the commission to hold a hearing on the issues next year. i understand upon that the environmental planning staff is busy now. i heard part of the discussion that you had related to joe and i i'm aware of the housing element and the other big projects that they are working on operately. i'm concerned about phone access to staff by the partial some staff are in the office, somewhere not in the office and those not in the office are not always forwarding calls it a cell phone or available on teams. i was unable to contact tom desanto or reach everyone covering him during his absence. and that certainly contributed to and may have caused my ceqa appeal to deemed untime low temperature important for someone to cover key functions like tom's when he or other

staff are unavailable and i will follow up on this point with tom if i can reach him. i have been unsuccessful. thanks for listening. >> commissioners i'm francisco decosta. i would like to say something about quality of life issues. lake merced are developer will build 3,000 new units. next door there are 1, 200 units that are empty. why are are you not allowing developers to build so many units when you don't address where they will get the clean

drink water? andef where were will the sewer go? because shame that year 2022, the clean drinking water to flush our toilets. the planning department should be a key role in quality of life issues including the [inaudible] all over the city, 50 stinking tents yet people go to do drugs. the upon planning department [inaudible] our city, insulting and dirty. and the planning department must have a say. we need get attention of those

departments that have to maintain cleanliness in our city. thank you very much. upon last call for general public comment. in forward or raise your hand. press star 3. no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. we can move to the regular calendar for item 6. says 2022-00901 for the electric vehicle charging planning code amendment.

can you bring update slide? thank you. good afternoon, commissioners jenny, planning staff. before i give -- um -- in january mayor breed introduced the ev charging location oranges this april the commission approve today with modifications. the board passed and the mayor approved that legislation in september. not all the planning commission recommendations were included in

the approved ordinance. but it did -- establish definitions for fleet charging. permit in residentialing/commercial community business and downtown districts. will some mixed use and most nc districts. ordinance permits fleet charge use in pdr sdrishths the existing use is vehicle storage or private park otherwise it requires a cu in pdr districts. >> in july of this year, supervisor peskin duplicate today and referred the duplicated version for further comment. with this ordinance supervisor peskin proposes 2 changes in the approved ordinance. one create planning code section to add 3 new criteria assessing whether to grarnt cuf fleet

charging locations. restrict requiring a c u authorization regardless of the existing use. the propose the ordinance proposes no other changes to changes allowed or provisions of the approved ordinance. the department conducted an analysis of the ordinance and found it could have varying affects on racial and social equity. the cu criteria targeted at fleets de dedicated to ride hailing transportation companies like lyft and uber. low rbi come communities and community of color use transit more and network companies less for trips. the it would reduce imppacts of ride hailing fleets they could support use and increase racial and social equity. some of the criteria could prohibit fleet charging

associated with ride hailing this could push the companies to locate in other jurisdictions while still serve people in san francisco. in this scene the city would not collect development impact fees from fleet charging even the affectless of ride hailing trips born by residencen dept. dent its could harm transit without reducing competing trips by ride hailing floats. details are in the case report. the planning department made adjust ams to the recommendations in october of 20 staff report. the recommendations are onceir will cover today. over all, the staff recommendations are designed to achieve intent of the cu and avoiding the challenges and negative consequence of implementing them. the first recommendation is to remove cu1 and 3.

1 and 3 would effectively present fleet charging with ride hailing and other floats in highly congested areas or transit rich areas from receiving a c u the department agrees should be policy avoid low occupancy vehicles in these locations and challenging for a department staff and planning commissioners to analyze the criteria and monitor and enforce them. travel recommendations 2 and 3 provide a path for fleet charging with ride hail to receive a cu meeting c1 to reduce trips in locations of concern. ch the second designed to reduce impacts to people in transit. staff recommend permitting fleet charge nothing all districts except 1b with approve the ordinance and ensure that fleet

charging units are subject to a replacement requirement. consistent with the commission's direction on the approved ordinance. in addition the department significant crip tear fraia impacts to transportation considering factor in criteria 2. >> the third recommendation to reduce conflicts on the street adding planning code requirements for fleet charges. probable new curb cutos protected pedestrian, cycling and transit street frontages and require fleet charging projects 25 or more spaces or park spaces to prepare driveway and loading operationace plan with requirements under section 155 u. the fourth recommendation, is support transit. updating the existing sustaink fee.

there is a fee for fleet charging or parcel delivery service at pdr and nonresidential rates appear to be low compared to impacts of uses. fleet charge involves the flow of vehicle higher than the pdr fee study is needed to set an accurate fee should known to decision maker and it is public. that staff may recommend an increase to the fee in the future after studying. the ordinance requires the department to track and report on dast at next 5 years. the department tinlds to collaborate with the municipal transportation agency on monitoring the project and analysis of affectless on the transportation and circulation system as part of that report happening. this information will allow the department to assess further amendments should be considered by this commission and the board. department proposed incorporating the results of the

ajs in the update to the transportation element. that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions you have. thank you. >> is that 61 cludes present egg. take public comment. come forward if you mean are remote press story 3 or raise your hand. >> good afternoon president tan and vice president moore and the commission. i'm judi lee an emotional were government affair's team. grateful for the collaboration resulted in the passage of the ev legislation and look forward to our efforts to make san francisco a leader in the space. we appreciate of the opportunitied to meet with planning staff following the introduction of changes to the initial ordinance. if weir to meet the city and state environmental goalless we need to decarbonize transportation and wide supered electrification new charging for

charging. we believe that an open upon to fleet charging is a path forward that promotes from equity and allows chargeings site tologist go with the appropriate infrastructure exists. we are committed to labor part sdmers proud of work to ensure our jobs are filled with people from the communities we serve. we were concerned the pdr replacing requirements will add undefined costs to projects making most of the projects and feasible. i appreciate your time and we look forward to engaging with the commission how to ensure of the clean transportation is available to all. thank you. am no other members in the chamber wish to comment we go remote. >> good afternoon, commissioners mark, i'm speaking on behalf the

executive officers of teamster local 665 in san francisco. teamster 665 represents women and men work in the [inaudible] throughout the bay area. we support the expansion of ev stations the exception is has been the fleet charging as a [inaudible] the plans put forward. the july of this year the supervisors unanimously said to amend ensure fleet charging the receive review going forward. that will result a sign by mayor breechld our position remains unchanged. fleet charging go throughout cu process. wey proosht everyone's concerns and we think that thank you for your support.

>> last call for public comment. seeing no requests to speak. commissioners i take that back. >> [inaudible]. go ahead. caller. >> hi. this is [inaudible] from sf news work to empower local manufactures we appreciate the efforts to protect pdr space and. the suggestion for replace am of pdr space that could be cost to fleet charging. hopeful low we can achieve our goals of electrification and net zer over transportation and encouraging transit and space for people to make local manufactures to be the engine of

our economy in the city. thank you. final last call for public comment. seeing no requests it speak public comment is close third degree matter is buffer, commissioners. >> thank you. staff. and the callers and the commissioner. imperial. >> thank you. i have a question in terms of the based on the recommendations, first on the recommendation one, the removal of proposed cu1 and 3, my question is in terms of because the department is argument is that it is hard to analyze the project consistency.

don't we have a process in terms of tracking the consistency of this? when we talk about the low occupancy vehicle in high areas and transit rich areas, why would be hard to track it? >> staff concern is that we dove have am a vmt analysis for projects. the language not indoings for low occupancy vehicles we know from past research this ride hailing services do induce and present those projects. and we think there are ways of meeting the indeck in one without a cu that would be prohibition on that use. >> it is it would -- dependses on the because as we you know

when we look in the projects here we look to vmt analysis. that is what you know also the commissioner looks into. so i'm like, um. i guess trying to stretch out more on the argument that it is hard to track it when it sell being done here already at planning commission. so. unless i'm wrong. >> i think part is this it is difficult to track where some of the uses the vehicles go. they don't provide data to the planning department voluntarily and provide it to state agencies that regulate them but that is in the provided us. we can analyze their impactless at the localized level. we have a sense that everbased on an analysis but the specific location where vehicle 8 guess as operating ride hailing service is something we don't know >> i see like weep don't have

categories for ride hailing, parcel deliver in tefrms vmt analysis all types of vehicles skwoochl it is based on the base the analysis on what the land use the land use of the location would be. them upon come to ride hailing vehicle. you know we know where people take their trips but does in the give us analysis to know where it will going any time. >> okay. and in terms of criteria 3, can you per there examples that kufrms trying to secure vehicles for park already? is this a trends that is happening already? >> they are seek parking for fleet vehicles >> yea. it on the point criteria unintended consequence prompting

companies to secure more very close parking preys space used for other use is there a trend upon helping that the planning or sfmta is seeing? >> understanding how when the projects come in the planning department fleet charging for [inaudible] their intent is to come in. charge, get back on street and take passengers. they want don't park and so it seems their decision is where they go and how many spaces they need based on turn over if they had to provide enough for all to be parked at the same time. they would, they would need to secure more space than they do. and the space could be used for housing and pdr >> okay >> i guess i'm trying to see if trying to00ue know if we were

there are those trendses already happening it seems like it might be. that might be the trend. the short answer is yes, and i'm not sure what the universe is in terms will when i'm aware of, we had one facilities on caesar chavez a charging and maintenance facility. an application that was issued prior to the legislation that was a small are site.