The committee to continue this item. Next speaker. Good morning. Now it is afternoon. Peter cohen. The pdas at a technical level, i would like to step back and think about this item in contrast to the last item sb50 and the conversation about local community planning. It is very encouraging to hear your Planning Department staff and i am thinking about supervisor browns comments early about the staff being helpful. It is not a technical resource. You didnt see the Planning Department staff taking a position opposing sb50 based on the amendment the board put forward. Frankly, that is what a Planning Department should be doing. Unfortunately they were silent and it took the board to do that technical work. Now the Planning Department is coming forward with a pda proposal saying this is not dictating zoning or telling you your process is taken away from you. This is the short of music to a lot of folks ears about doing the planning right. Of course, all of the details matter much. It seems to be a contradictory narrative. The state knows what is right and the right process and knows where the geography is. I would encourage you to think about this, frankly, as a positive signal as the planning staff has used about how to do things right and how to have local participation that is grounded in local control. I think in San Francisco we have used that term responsibly. In contrast to an earlier speaker that said the paternallism of the state telling the neighborhoods and leaders how to do your job. I support this in concept. It is a great contrast to what you heard earlier. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. Susanna parsons with spur. We confirm to create new Priority Development areas, conservation areas and Priority Production areas as part of plan bay area 2050. We appreciate the proposed areas are in areas with highquality transit. This is the right place to put new growth and helps the city meet its goals for sustainability and supports new transit investments. We appreciate the pdas are geographically distributed. All parts of San Francisco are a role to play and to create an inconclusive city and region. Next speaker. Catherine howard. This is a summary of two page analysis i have submitted yesterday. I am very concerned about the impact of the proposed new Priority Development areas will have on the city. The public has had a short time to review this and i suspect these to come in during the christmas and thanksgiving vacations. I ask you to postpone a ves voto there can be further discussion by the communities affected. The Planning Department insists the areas are being designated for planning purposes, the factory mains they are called Priority Development areas, not priority planning areas. In october 2019, a memo from the Planning Department defines the pda as a signal from a local government it has considered planning for housing growth in that area. M. T. C. A planning document further states that quote the pda planning programming provides Financial Support for planning processes that seek to intensify land uses end. Planning processes with the greatest potential for resulting in land use zoning and policy changing leading to new development will be most competitive and emphasizing zoning updates to facilitate and streamline the development process. We want a communitybased development process, and yet this and i will use the word paternalistic as imposed on the Planning Department. In the interest of full public process postpone a vote and schedule meetings in the impacted neighborhoods to let the neighborhoods give impact. I will submit a copy of my longer analysis for the clerk and the board. Thank you. I am barry hermanson. I want to ask a brief question. Priority development for whom . We need affordable housing. I am very clear that even with the requirement to build 25 or 30 affordable, it is exactly the reverse of what we need. We need 75 to 80 to 90 to 100 affordable. Otherwise, we are facing massive displacement, gentrification. Priority development for whom . I ask that be defined a little more before this goes forward. Thank you. Good afternoon. George wedding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. Just a couple of thoughts and comments, not a real ask. It cant override whether a Citizens Group does in the pda. Planning can do that right now. The funding and grants are welcome for the planning for its sens, but they are also very minimalistic. I was told that from 2007 to now on transportation and that kind of thing, we spent about 12 million. You can do the math. You can see we are not talking about huge grants here. We are not fixing problems. I think what is troubles is to hear what irene said. We are in the process of planning on the west side. Already it is slippery slope. Definitions might be changing, we have no control over what is going to happen after we do a pda in terms of density. There is no parameters. We approve an area, but we have no idea how much density we are approving. We could be approving massive amounts of density. I do welcome that the citizenry is being asked to review this, but i also. Next speaker, please. Corey smith, San Francisco housing action. I am in support of the Planning Department and thrilled to hear that supervisor mar and others are taking this on to move forward. I totally agree with peter earlier. This conversation in conjunction with the sb50 is interesting. The city of San Francisco had the opportunity to do this for a long time and hasnt. If you are at the Planning Commission hearing for this item, hearing the vial comments in opposition. Jake mcgold rick said vaping the west side. We couldnt do it because families live on the west side. Insinuating families cant live in apartments. We encourage Community Conversations so people can figure out the best way for the city to grow on the western half of San Francisco. We dont see that in conflict with the more homes act. Sb50 says San Francisco height limits 45 feet. We are not going to touch that but allow density controls. Then the city can come in with a planning overlay and we can make our own requirements for demolition and everything else. You know, i wholeheartedly hope everybody that comes up here saying we need a local plan leads. If not, it is just talk, and it is spinning our wheels and saying things we dont believe we are going to fulfill and saying we need more affordable housing. I am exciting. Thank you for your work on it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Rick hall. I would join what says we dont know enough about this yet. It should be continued. There should be a lot more involvement by the communities in what this is. You can see by the lack of turnout here, most communities dont really arent engaged at this level. Yet Planning Works with us in the mission a lot. This one even came up and surprised us. Why, arent there Community Meetings throughout the impacted communities east and west working with their supervisors to get in put on this before it is just, you know, sort of waved forward . What are the implications . What are we getting out of taking this bribe of a very small amount of money to send a signal we are open for market rate business . We need to consider these things. You guys need to figure out what are we saying and what are the implications when, you know, the next version of sb50 says and pdas we are going to do x . Why arent we taking out other pdas where we have on the eastern side of the cityover overdone and overbuilt. We havent answered the questions that need answered. Next speaker. San francisco coalition. I want to make a comment about the startling difference that i notice between what the pda allocation is for San Francisco and the areas in the suburbs. I think the slide was indicating that is 13,000acres of pda designated versus the suburbs in the thousands. My only question here is, and not so of an objection, it is a good idea for us to plan for areas that will be developed in the future as long as we are not going to demolish what is existing there to displace to develop. My question is this. If we are increasing the pdas, does that mean the rena obligation is going to increase . If that is the case, what can we do to get the suburbs to pull their first share. That is it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else to speak on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I want to ask you to come up and respond to the points made during Public Comment, in particular, i think there were a number of people that were concerned about the lack of time and process for Community Input on the expanded pda designatio designations. And the request for more time for the community to weigh in on this. Certainly. We have been this is a board action. Planning department has talked to all of the supervisors over the last two or three months. To get feedback and outreach at the direction of the Board Members who shot it was necessary for their districts. I have been out at Community Meetings in g7 and spokeker to d4 and d1 and the supervisors havent asked for further outreach. I made myself available to answer questions as need be. We do have the timeline laid out. We all recognize it is a tight timeline. They have the process to undertake the regional plan within a certain timeframe and put this out giving cities a number of months to carry this out. That is what has been laid before us. I want to respond and say that i first got the first communication from you about this may be a month ago. I cant remember exactly when it was. I had to reach out and request a meeting about it. I do think a lot more work could have been done by the Planning Department to not just work with the supervisors on the expanded pda proposal but to make it more known to the public. Given that we are facing a january 15th deadline for the board to pass the resolution and forward it . Thats correct. I think we are under a realtime deadline on this. We need to continue this a week and not vote on it today. The amendments that the attorney or can you comment on the amendments that i proposed . Are they substantive. Deputy city attorney. They are not substantive. The committee could pass it out today or if you continue it, you could pass it out next week. Then t to the full board on the 17th. Can you respond to a number of comments raised of concern about how the expanding the pdas to the west side neighborhoods could lead to the kind of concerns that folks have been raising about sb50 and the west side. If you can respond to that. I would be happy to. There is not a direct correlation between the pdas and sb50s. The pdas is voluntary framework to tap into the resources for planning processes. It doesnt presuppose any particular outcome. Ultimately, if the city chooses not to do planning in those the consequences are the pda by the region in the future if they dont see action by the local jurisdiction to take some action to increase housing capacity. It is a reflection of the fact that ultimately the land use controls are up to the city and not the region. It is really up to us to do something or not do something where these pdas. There is no real direct correlation between sb50. It doesnt reference this in any manner and the controls that would impose. The pda framework is bay area specific framework that was created a number of years ago. Not something any oregon in the state uses. There would be no reason for sb50 to reference it in any manner. One of the previous Public Comment statements that other cities havent stepped up to nominate pdas. That is why they wont recognize the pdas. That is as much or nor trying to get the cities to allow housing when they are not doing it themselves. The pda provides an opportunity to do planning and helping the city. Those are the carrots available to influence what happens. Do you have any questions, comments . I would like to move that we accept the amendment that i presented today without objection. I would like to move we continue this item since we will have a special Board Meeting special jo meeting next week to allow the publish to review. The more is to continue the item as amended to the special Committee Meeting of december 11th. Can we do that without objection . Yes. Mr. Clerk please call items 4 and 5 foreclosed session. Agenda items 4 and 5 are for settlements of lawsuits against the city and county of San Francisco. Any members of the public who wish twish to testify on the ito be heard in closed session . Public comment im sorry. Sue hester. This is the settlements academy of Art University of the first and only hearing the Planning Commission was right before thanksgiving. I believe that there is going to be a landuse Committee Meeting next monday to hear this. It has not been advertised, bullet i was told that. It is now advertised. Well, i am here. I just want to tell you that sometime there needs to be serious discussion about the academy of art. If it is like last time, we will be through with the hearing in under two hours, and next monday. It will come to the board for the first hearing on the 17th, and the second hearing right after the first of the year. Both hearings in january. I cant hear you. I will let you finish then i will respond. When people raise questions about housing buyout and price of housing in the development agreement, which was only made available at the very, very end of october, people had no ability to plow through the complicated thing because it was confidential. People raised questions about ad accessibility and people raised questions about transit and the concentration on van ness avenue. Basically, the only people that were listened to buy the Planning Commission were the the immediate neighbors. Housing, ada and transit were shit canned. We had no ability to get in put. Thank you. Next speaker. When you dont speak. Supervisor peskin. I want to clarify that on monday, december 9th, the Landuse Committee will hear this matter. That will not be forwarded to the full board until our first meeting in january for a possible first reading, and the second meeting in january for a possible second meeting. It is not going to the full board of supervisors on the 17th of december. Thank you for that additional comment, supervisor peskin. I have been following the academy of Art University. I think there is quite a bit more here about the proposed settlement be that needs to be sunlighted. Too many parts of this complicated agreement havent had public scrutiny, and a lot of it i am not sure that we can see even now. There seems to be some parts of it that you have to approve before there can be any amendment. Then there can be no amendments. Please, do what you can to help San Francisco and the residents who have been evicted from their housing and who have gotten no compensation, but the city has also suffered. Please do what you can to put more sunlight on this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the public to speak on the items foreclosed session . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Do we have a motion to convene in closed session . We are now in we are now back in open session for government audit and oversights december 5, 2019. During the closed session the committee acted to first remember agenda item 4 to item four to the january 7th Board Meeting without recommendation for consideration on january 7th. Agenda item 5 will be a Committee Report to the decembea recommendation. Mr. Clerk, any further business . Clerk no further business. We are adjourned. Thank you. Hi. Ou. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. When i meet with seniors in the community, theyre thinking about the future. Some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood thats closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. Thats why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. So how does this work . Prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. Under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2 growth a year. But when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. Compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. Thats where prop 60 comes in. Prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. Remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the Property Value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. If you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. This means that if your existing home is worth 1 million in market value, your new home must be 1 million or below. If youre looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105 of your exist egging home. Which means if you sell your old home for 1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than 1. 15 million. If you sell your existing home at 1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than 1. 1 million. Know that your ability to participate in this Program Expires after two years. You will not be able to receive prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. So benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. Just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. For more, visit our website, sfassessor. Org, will the clerk please take the roll. [roll call] clerk at this time, we ask that you silence all cell phones and soundproducing devices. Thank you. Next up on the agenda is approve of the november 6, 2019 agenda. Do i have a motion to approve . So moved. Do i have a second . Second. Any discussion . Call the question. All in favor . Any opposed . Thank you. The motion carries. Next up on the agenda is approval of the november 6, 2019 minutes. Do i have a motion to approve . So move zb. Do i have a second . Second. Any discussion . Call the question. All in favor . Any opposed. Thank you. Next up, directors report. Thank you. Director sherreen mcspadden. To achieve a longterm funding bill, the house and Senate Appropriators still have to approve funding allocations for federal agencies, and of course that means that the Older Americans act is caught up in that wait. So essentially, National Association of area agencies on ageing which is our federal or National Organization that really lobbies for the Older Americans act is asking for continued advocacy for localities to push the Older Americans act in with the house suggested forward. So we still dont know yet what thats going to look like. Unfortunately, it got held up in that process as did a lot of other things. So ill keep you updated on that. And hopefully in the next cycle before the holidays something will happen with it, but that may be unlikely at this point. We may be looking at next calendar year for that to get passed. And then at the state level, there continues to be a ton of activity around the master plan for ageing. I think i announced last month that i was going to be going to the longterm supports and Services Subcommittee of the Master Plan Advisory Committee to present on our benefits and resource hub model that we have here. That presentation was really well received at the state level. The state is really excited about the kind of the focus on care coordination or sorry, coordination across programs and also trying, attempts to get at a personcentered approach, a onestop shop. So the California Welfare Directors Association has also asked me to come present to them tomorrow and present that model. And i think that model may very well be a piece in the recommendations in the master plan for ageing. So what ive realized in doing this exercise that were one of very few counties that are referring Intake Services for disabled and older adults. San diego has a similar model, but many counties do not. Many counties, the welfare departments, which include Inhome Services and Older Adult Services are acting separate from the services for ageing, meals for adults and Transportation Services and those things. I think one of the thicks thats laid out in the master plan executive order is that we get to coordinated services for people. So its kind of exciting that our model is being seen as one thats innovative and that works for people and hopefully, the state will think about i mean, it doesnt have to be our model. Our model may not work in large rural counties, for instance, but the idea that we really pull things in to one place for people is really exciting to them. Other models that we have that people are starting to look at is we just completed our twoyear ucsf, i should say, completed their twoyear study of our home program, and some of the results from that make that model very promising, make that pilot seem like something that could be expanded, and the state is really interested in looking at that model, too, and looking at the results that came from that study. I was speaking with some people from the state yesterday, and they want us to come and present that model at the state, too. So one of the things that the master plan for ageing also calls for is really thinking about people that dont qualify for medical and what we call the forgotten middle, and that looks interesting to them, any ways, so its validating we think about ways to serve people in San Francisco and its validating to have the state look at our models and say these are examples of what we could do statewide. And i guess the last thing that the states really looking at us and looking at other counties is thinking about how they roll out agefriendly california and what does that really mean . And for us in San Francisco, weve done ageing disabilities in San Francisco. Valerie coleman is our lead on that. Its looking at everything that we do, whether its planning, transportation, builtin environment, whether its our social system, any of those things, its thinking about them with an age and disability lens. Its about making things better now, and its about making things better now, and so the states trying to figure out a way to do that with state funding. What it means is really bringing the state siloed departments together, and how are we going to learn from some other agencies doing this work to make a better california for all thats ageing here . So its really exciting to be a part of that work. And then, locally, we are awaiting the mayors budget instructions. They will come out she has a meeting with the Department Heads on december 16 monday, december 16, and so well be getting our instructions then, certainly, her priorities, as shes been very clear about, are street homelessness, Substance Abuse issues, conservatorship issues, people needing Mental Health treatment and things like that. And she was very clear in the last meeting that will be her primary focus and thats where any dollars or existing dollars will go to help alleviate some issues for people on the streets. So i think with that, that concludes my report unless anybody has any questions. Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commission . I have one, shireen. I think its terrific that your presentation was so well received at the state level. And just briefly, can you tell us what evidence of the effectiveness of our coordinated approach most impressed them . I think its as basic as having somebody i mean, we are not to the evidence part yet, and i want to did tell them also is were really working on this model. Its not perfect yet. I think we have really good well, i know we have really good leadership in place to get it there, but whats really compelling to them is that somebody can come in or call in or get online, and our staff are there to work with them on every service they may need. So if they call if its a caregiver calling about Inhome Supportive Services or a case manager calling about Inhome Supportive Services, our staff are there to say well, what else will this person need . Lets get it in place. If a person is calling in themselves, they may be calling about one thing, but they may need a myriad of things, and or staff is working on whats called a personcentered approach. That kind of saying, okay, lets think about the whole person. Lets think about things they may not know about and share that information with them. That is still in progress and not everybody is going to get that wraparound kind of attention immediately. It takes staff time to be able to get the resources in place. Some people understand that, and some people require a little bit more training, but thats ultimately where were going for that. I think when you think about the difference between that and, you know, some of the air agencies on ageing, for one thing, there are not 58 air agencies on ageing, but there are 58 california counties. There are 33, and the other counties are small, but their challenges are big. Theyve been underfunded, and so theyre not able to coordinate services with the county when thats the situation. So i think the state is thinking well, lets at least give counties some baseline funding so those services can be coordinated better and stablized better. Commissioner pappas . Just one thing. I was not here last month, and you might have addressed it. Will we be getting some report with the passage of prop b how that will affect the department . Thank you. I forgot to mention that to you. We essentially are going to roll out the name change slowly, so one of the things that we can do right now is we can Start Talking about the name as department of ageing and disability services. We have changed over our letterhead, that kind of stuff. But the reason were doing it theres two reasons were doing it slowly well, really, one reason. Because were doing an agency rebrand and were launching that rebrand very early in the year, we are kind of waiting to change over things like business cards and all of that and really do a push to the public until we have a new logo and were able to get that logo on business cards and were able to get ready to go, so youll certainly hear a piece of that. Youll be hearing about that and be asked to spread the word, as well. So well definitely do something around that. I think, yeah, right now, were just really starting to talk about the new name and putting it out to the commission. We have it prepared and its literally sitting on my desk, ready to go, but we will get that out this week. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. I believe all of you have heard from the Mayors Office, and i believe you all know that one of the things that changes with the commission is a designated appointment. So there will be a designation of a person with disabilities, a person whos 60 or older, and a person whos a veteran, so that may change the commission a bit. Just a quick question. Is a veteran, disabled, and senior. Mmhmm. One person might fit into three categories. Thats true, and thats up to the Mayors Office to figure out. Its one person no. Its three distinct seats. It cant be one person three distinct seats of the seven are designated in legislation. Okay. Thank you. The next item is employee recognition. [applause] okay. So i know there are a lot of a. P. S. People in the house. Thats right. Jerome, thank you for speaking up. But what id like to do is have the clerks for a. P. S. Stand if you could. [applause] and also the clerk the manager of the clerks. Come on, tanji. [applause] so one of the things that we often dont think about but we should because theyre kind of the backbone of the program is what the clerks actually do for a lot of our programs in daas, but particularly in a. P. S. They really help the social workers be successful at serving san franciscans who are victims of abuse and neglect. They are every bit of the solution that a. P. S. Provides the people as anyone is. So so they really are. And i think we often overlook the work the clerks provide for a. P. S. , but its so important. And without we need to keep really good data. We need to know if were doing best practices. We need to know if people have been victims of abuse before. We need to track all of this, right . We need to send all of these records to the state. All of these are really good functions of the program. Im really glad you are an honoree and it gives me a chance to talk about the clerks and tanji, i want to talk about your management. Its really great to have you in protective services. So mary grace, im going to read what your colleagues wrote about you today because its just fantastic. So mary grace first joined Adult Protective Services in 2014 as a Public Service trainee and then became a unit clerk in 2017. As mary graces supervisor of three years, i write this letter with much excitement. Mary grace stood out among the clerical team because although she was not the senior clerk, she raised pertinent questions and provided key input that would later serve as the guide for internal changes. She has remained eternally upbeat while embracing many program changes. It is important to note that for many months, mary grace was the sole clerk for the Program Services agency. She educated herself in all the roles filled in a. P. S. Because of this, she is able to proactively identify issues across the board and able to bring them to Program Manager and service teams. Mary grace is committed to the mission of daas and the Critical Role that the a. P. S. Plays in help people with disabilities who are experiencing neglect, homelessness, and selfneglect. She is a team player and always ready to pitch in to make sure that the needs of the team are ready to be accomplished. She has a sunny disposition and her smile is ready to lift the mood of her coworkers. So mary grace, you are the employee of the month of december for daas, and congratulations. Ill keep this really short. Good morning, everyone. First of all, i want to thank god, my family, our program directors, manager, supervisors, and my colleagues. I used to be here to support my coworkers when they received the recognition, and it never crossed my mind that i will be receiving mine today. So all of you guys, expect me to continue my excellent work ethic, discipline, positivity in everything i do, and im always here to help. I appreciate all your support, again, from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. [applause] the next item on the agenda is the Advisory Council report which was provided in writing and included with our package. Next item, theres nothing from the joint legislative committee, so the nothing from tacc, so the next item is the longterm care coordinating council report. Good morning, commissioners, executive director mcspadden. Im valerie cohen, an analyst with the department of disability and ageing services. Unfortunately, none of the Council Members can be here today, so i am here on their behalf. We had a meeting on november 14. There was a lot of presentations, including the department of Public Health came and spoke about their Public Services master plan, and requested that a Council Member sit on that body and represented the perspective of the longterm care coordinating council. We also had a presentation from Melissa Mcgee on the dignity fund update, which im sure youre all aware of, as well. We also had a lengthy presentation about census 2020 which was very informative and now the councils trying to figure out how they can support that initiative and effort. Theres a lot back. For the sudden and drastic closures of virtually all 52 out of 60 for the spring 2020 of the older Adult Classes around the city. As you know, the older adults department, oald, serves over 30,000 residents at locations throughout the city, including senior centers, adult day centers, senior housing, assisted living, skilled nursing, rehabilitation centers, and more. The oald has been collaborating closely with Community Partners on a longterm basis, some for over 50 years. These centers rely on city college. Due to the special needs of older adult students, oald have been bringing classes to older