materials and oral testimony and it continues, it's changing the verb, and then there's a correction on page 4, therefore reviewing the materials and having heard all the testimony and arguments, the commissions find, conclude and resolve as follows, so those are sort of minor technical things in response to commissioner borden, the second resolved clause, i would suggest adding language as follows, and this is the clause that begins the increase in the acl's specified by this resolution are limited to the limited general shadows accumulative by the new shadows within the transit center district plan as identified in the eir prepared for the plan, this would be additional added language, and would not be available for buildings outside

of the plan. >> thank you, and i accept the previous arata, the city attorney, that you've haed and also the language to reflect the concern of commissioner borden. >> commissioner hillis? >> i'm supportive of that motion and the amendment, i would even want to put in parenthetical how much of that acl is related to transbay but i'm okay as it is, but just a point on why i think it's appropriate to do this when we're doing the planning, if you look at the market octavia plan where we didn't look at shadow impacts and increase the limits, we've got this odd dynamic happening where we built a park, phase green, in that plan, we contemplated development adjacent to that park in the former octavia parcels but they're not allowed to be built unless we have this

joipt hearing and approve this budget, i think this makes a ton of sense to approve these limits when we're approving the plan, so the plan has some certainty in getting implemented, so i'm very supportive of the motion. >> president buell. >> i have a couple of questions and some comments. i guess the first question is i received a letter today from the telegraph hills dwelling association and an action by our commission to increase absolute cumulative limits to accommodate these significant impacts is inconsistent with the plans of the eir and will be in violation of 295, i want the city attorney to weigh in on that, i don't want to be in

violation of those sections. >> john from the city attorney's office, if i could have a minute to review the letter which i just received and then i could respond to it. >> great, thank you, then let me ask staff for a minute and this would be the joint powers group, the rec and park department has a genuine concern about what ultimately happens with the open space and recreation facilities in the project. i know you can't answer that definitively today, i know we've had outside conversations about it, but i would like the record to reflect, if you can arrive at any conclusions about your recommendations about the disposition of those properties, you would come before our commission with that information. >> commissioner john ram with the planning department, we would certainly be happy to do that and we'll certainly have many discussion ins the disposition of those property

ins the years to come. >> thank you very much, let me just make a couple of observations, i'm encouraged by the fact that a long planning process that had some very sound reasoning behind it has met with so much community support and i mean by that the environmental implications of what we're doing. i was pleased at the beginning of the presentation to see how many thousands of tons of carbon would be saved by this kind of planning and putting jobs in transit and housing in some proximity to itself. i'm singing to the choir here, but the idea of seeing any real fundamental change in bringing to a level of 350 parts per billion carbon in the atmosphere is going to come primarily by conservation and changing the way we live, whether we do lots of solar or lots of wind or evolve to nuclear, whatever else happens, the only thing we can do is what we can do here, expecting

the federal government or even the state to answer this problem has become increasingly problematic, so acting locally and doing something about it is just enormously important, so at the expense of some, what i think are minimal impacts on parks, and i really love the work you did about the use in those parks because that's enormously helpful to us, i think that the general outcome of this is a very, very positive message to everybody. having said that, i share the concern that you're proposing lifting the allocations based on maximum height and bulk of these other buildings, but i asked the question, what happens when you come in with specific designs and they may be less than maximum, can we reduce the number? can we reduce the allocation to reflect the real design? >> joshua switzky, planning staff, you would only be allocating the amount necessary for any individual projects,

and as the proposed amend *f amendments to the motion would not let buildings outside the plan area avail of those unused allocations, so those two scenarios, the unused allocation goes unused forever or the commission could act to reduce the allocations again in the future if there was a real concern about unused allocation. >> i think that concern was expressed today and so i think it's a real one. and i think it actually ends up rewarding development that follows the path of what's been done here and really seriously looking long term on how and when we want growth and what we can do to get it. it doesn't need to be done today but it needs to be done as we jointly and individually look at projects and impacts on parks. >> john from the city

attorney's office, i've had a chance to review the letter and i would just like to make a few points about that. the first is that the letter sort of co-mingles what are common terms that are used both in the environmental analysis and ceqa process as well as in section 295, this is something the commissions grapple with. every time a shadow decision comes before it, but the terms of what's considered significant and insignificant under ceqa or adverse impacts under ceqa are different decisions, different analysis, different factors come into play. when those sixes are decisions are made in the process of 295 analysis prop k, so i wanted to point that out. i think the staff memo that you received does touch on this

briefly as well. i did also want to point out that commissioner sugaya raised another city attorney opinion, i just wanted to point out that addressed sort of a different question than the issue that is are before you today, so i don't think that that has bear -- bearing on today's decision, but i wanted to point out something about the 1989 memo that are raised in this letter and raised another city attorney opinion on the very issue that's before you. so, your action today does not violate the charter in any way, it doesn't violate prop k in any way, it doesn't violate section 295, and i think the staff presented in the beginning of the hearing how we

got do the point we have with what we refer to as the 1989 memo which was an out growth of prop k and the authority vested in these two commissions to think about shadowing and parks in san francisco and to implement the intent of the voters and what the commissions elected to do in 1989 is adopt a memo that looked at certain parks, it created criteria, it created certain budget's limits of new shadowing on some of those parks and imposed on others said the no new shadow would be allowed, that was something -- prop k didn't spell that out to you, that was something that you decided as commissioners on how to implement prop k. you could have come up with an entirely different method, that's what you come up with, it's not set in stone, it's

something that's flexible like the question that you raised earlier of how do you define what's an adverse impact under prop k, those are questions and sixes that are left to the authority of the commission to decide case by case, you could adopt definitions, you haven't done so, you have left the flexibility as you go through the future to decide them as you see fit. so, in the same way that under the 1989 memo, you created criteria in the first place, you have the ability to change those criteria, and i want to read to you from a memo that the city attorney prepared, a public memo and i think i presented this to the planning commission when you consider the transit district center plan in may and this goes to the question of setting the

limits that you've set, the acl's for certain parks and changing them, the original careful cumulative limit and qualitative factors may prove sufficient, this is in reference to the 1989 memo, however, if new information and experience prove that the criteria are unnecessarily restrictive, or are in effective to protect parks from shadow or shading, then as commissioners have the implied necessary power and indeed a duty to change them. that clearly recognizes that the commissions have the ability to restrict at any time those parks that have shadow, they could allow for less if that's what their determination or they could allow for more when they think about the city and they think about the prop k and balance that in your

decision-making. >> thank you. >> planning commissioners, there's a motion on the floor for approval, the motion has been amended by the request of commissioner borden and it's been clarified by deputy city attorney, john mall march, he read into the regard, grammatical change tos the resolution on page 3 and page 4 and he read into the record some language to address the concerns offered by commissioner borden that basically states that the increased limits could not be used by projects outside the planned area, on that motion for the planning commission only, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> borden? >> hao*i. >> hillis? >> commission cheerer moore? >> no. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> the commissioner passed 5-2

with commissioners sugaya and more voted against. it also was to adopt ceqa findings. >> recreation and park commission. >> yes, i would like to make a motion on attachment 7 and i would like to read it into the record. joint resolution with the planning commission to amend the section 295 implementation [inaudible] adopted in 1989 to one raise the absolute cumulative shadow limits on 7 park properties, union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square, maritime plaza, willie woo woo wong playground and boeddeker park, and two, incorporate additional quantitative criteria for 9 parks, the previously listed 7 parks plus woh hei yuen park

that describe the quantity coverage area sdraition times of time and days of year of new shadows and to adopt fiemdbacker findings under the environmental quality act with the amendment that i would ask the city attorney to read in. >> certainly, deputy city attorney, so the amendment would be the same amendment made by the planning commission, it would be on page 7 of attachment 7, and it would be on the first be it further resolved clause, at the end of that clause, the following would be added, and would not be available for buildings outside the plan, so the entire clause, be it further resolved, the increases in the acl specified by this resolution are limit today the general shadow profile tos the cumulative new shadows that could be cast within the central plan as define ined the eir defined for the plan and would not be available for buildings outside the plan.

>> second. >> it's been moved and seconded, all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, it's unanimous. >> commissioners, we now need a motion for item number 2. >> i will make a motion to approve attachment 8 which is adopting findings to one recommend the planning commission that the net new shadow from the proposed project at 101 first street will not have an impact on union's square, mary's park square,..[reading].. and boeddeker card as required by section 295, the sunshine ordinance to allocate net new shadow at 101 first street at

union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square and adopt the findings. >> moved and seconded, all those in favor? >> aye. >> aye. opposed, hearing none, it's unanimous. thank you. >> there being no further business before the joint bodies. >> we would entertain a motion to adjourn. >> moved. >> seconded. >> all moved and seconded on our side, so moved. >> so moved. >> second. >> meeting adjourned. >> thank you.

>> thank you, everyone, for coming. i welcome to the opening of scoots san francisco network. [applause]. >> thanks. today, we are opening our beta program to the san francisco public and with that, we are opening the world's first network of shared electric scooters. [applause]. >> there we go, we're back,

okay, so before i tell you about our s*frs for san francisco, i want to introduce someone who has already made san francisco an even better place to live, mayor ed lee. there are two things about the mayor's work and his administration that are particularly important to scoot, the first is that mayor lee is working hard to make this city an even better place to start and grow a new business, and second, he's been a toothless support of electric vehicles to improve san francisco's environment and the global environment as a whole so please welcome mayor ed lee. >> michael, matt, congratulations to scoot, yes. scoot and san francisco, well, let me first of all put this in some little perspective that i know, i know that we just announced last week, eb week in san francisco to the delight of so many people who want to just have modes of transportation,

multiple modes of transportation in a city that are also environmentally friendly and to contribute that reducing our fossil fuels, we are in san francisco world citizens after all and i know it's exciting for ed risken, our mta manager, he and i were excited to talk about different modes of transportation as we create all these exciting events to come to san francisco. i know it's exciting for board president david chiu, we tried to put pods for car sharing in neighborhoods on public streets and began in russian hill on his district, he's a vibrant, vibrant avid supporter of car sharing as i have been, i know ed riskens, well at the hub,

knowing that that's an incubator for great ideas came the idea of scooter san francisco and the scooter network, and it's the latest contribution to an ongoing conversation that board president chiu are having in this society, it really is when you come to automobile and or multiple modes of transportation sharing, scooter sharing is the latest contribution for people having access in our economy rather than just offered ownership and to me, that's really what wha* the shared economy is about and this great incubating idea of scooter sharing is wonderfulfinger these are all electric, you can power this up on 18 cents worth of power as compared to what gasoline prices are.

it takes, if you want to go around the city at 30 miles an hour, it will be less than half of the power of a toaster. it's equivalent to 850 miles a gallon to be on one of these electric scooters. i think it's safe, obviously we're going train people in the right way to abide but all the traffic regulations that we have, but as i sit in my car on days where i have to wait and 7, watch these scooters go by, it's kind of like where am i and what am i doing and can i contribute even more, so it's exciting to see this happen in san francisco, to see its launch, it's exciting that it's an idea that incubated out of the hub, it's exciting to not only see that it's fun for people to get around, to be more efficient and to kind of

stralgts the lanes, but it's exciting to know it contributes so much of the goals of this city, the goals that i know our department environment is leading the effort and our city is leading the effort, the board of supervisors working with my office to show case every opportunity we can to have alternative modes, and getting off of oil, it's going to be explained to you in simple terms how you get on these things but i'm so excited already, matt, or mike, that i am presenting to you my personal membership to the scooter network. alright. [applause]. >> there you go, thank you very much for starting here. >> thank you, mayor lee, this is a huge vote of confidence, we're happy to have your support. i would also like to introduce another leader of our city who is a fellow two-wheel rider,

board president david chiu is a dedicated bike commuter, he knows how to share the streets of san francisco with different modes of transportation, he's a tireless advocate for improving the transportation option sos we're happy, david to have you here supporting us in the opening of our public beta. >> good morning, is everyone ready to scoot? alright, thank you, michael, i am really excited to be part of this announcement for three reasons, first of all, san francisco, we need to be the leader in how we fight congestion, at this moment, we are the number 2 city in the country when it comes to congestion beside l.a., we have some serious issues we need to tackle and the neighborhoods we live in are the densest neighborhoods in the east coast, in the district, i have the densest neighborhoods in the city where one out of three residents do not own a car and

as someone who doesn't own a car, two of my favorite modes of transit are car sharing and my bicycle, car sharing because it's convenient not to own a car and my bicycle because it's easy to park, scoot allows you to pick up a bike when you need it but leave it and park it in ways that are easy and i want to thank michael and his team at scoot for innovating this, i'm excited about this for a second reason, we are the city of innovations and where great ideas start and continue, and as someone who ran a tech company, i'm excited that we have the best entrepreneurs, thinking about how the take a great idea and sell it to the rest of the world, the third reason i'm excited has to do something, and i'm going to call out to the chinese press that are here, this is an idea that came from michael's

experience in china, he saw on the streets of cities he visited scooters everywhere, i can tell you as a kid of immigrants, every time i visit taiwan, i don't get into the back of a car, i get on to a scooter, this is house people travel in densely populated cities, this is to bring a practice in parts of the world that even more dense than what we have here in san francisco and as american cities grow and become more populated, we're in that forefront to do it in a way that's safe, easy and economical and ensure that we are continuing to innovate our 21st century city, thank you for being here, i look forward the scooting with you on the roads. >> thank you, supervisor chiu, the transportation authority makes all modes of transportation possible in san francisco, and sfmta garage is

one of our corner stone location partners for the launch of our public data, we're very happy to have director of the sfmta ed risken here to say a couple of words at our launch. er >> thank you and good morning, as the city's transportation director, i have the privilege of managing the mta which is the agency in san francisco responsible for implementing the city's transit first policy. in order to implement that policy, there's two key things we need, we need strong leadership and innovation and what we're seeing today is the manifestation of just that in san francisco. what we need to do as the government and the transportation agency is make sure there are good choices available to people in terms of how they get around san francisco. we want people to feel like they don't need to get in their car, they don't want to get in their car, maybe like supervisor chiu and i, they

don't own a car because there are other good options for them to get around san francisco and there are ways they can get around that aren't going to clog our streets with traffic or fill our air with pollution, and i think scoot represents just one of those options and we're very happy to welcome them to san francisco, we're happy to do our small part in facilitating their launch here, i want to thank our director of off street parking manages all the mta parking garages and lots, we want to be through the management of those lots supportive of better ways to move around san francisco, cleaner ways to move around san francisco, so congratulations on your public launch, i look forward to seeing these red vehicles scooting around our streets safely and efficiently. thanks. [applause]. >> thank you, director. scoot isn't just a better way to get around the city, when we started scoot, we believed that

giving people an alternative to driving could have huge benefits for the local and global environment, we're dieted that mel knee muter, the director of the san francisco department of the environment is here with us in our opening of public beta in san francisco. >> good morning, everyone, it is an honor to be here for scoot's public announcement. this really does have great promise for helping to reduce carbon emissions in the city and county of san francisco. as some of you may know, about 40% of our carbon emissions in the city come from cars and trucks so we need to find alternatives for getting people out of their fossil fuel powered cars, this is going to be a great option for residences and businesses in san francisco to find an al -- an tern t*if, we're rolling out the electric vehicle infrastructure for cars so this

is another electric vehicle option that we're happy to support. we also implement the commuter benefits program and help employers provide options to their employees for getting out of their cars, we're happy to add scoot and electric plug in scooters for people to community in the city and county of san francisco, so i'm here to be in support, we look forward to expanding the options for individuals and residents and businesses in the city to help protect the environment. thank you very much. [applause]. >> thank you, director nut nut t*er, we are so lucky to be launching scoot in san francisco. this city has everything that we could hope for, san franciscans are the early adopters, they care about living healthier lifestyles and making the planet safer, and in