Update. Thank you. I am proud to expand this citywide alongside supervisor fewer. It is important for San Francisco to plan for our own future to pro actively say where we want more housing and to plan for increased housing density alongside improvements to Public Transit and important in. Structure. We must do this with the input and support of the community. We continued from last week for further clarifications about the implications for pdas. Since the last Committee Meeting i met with the principal planner at the association of bay area governments leading the pda program. One issue the public brought up was how pda boundaries would be misused as a target for private development. He relayed to me pdas only make cities eligible for Additional Resources and funding and are not tied to production goals. If a pda receives planning funds, the Community Gets to decide the specific boundaries of the plan area and not bound by the pda maimed. Cities can remove pdas. The reason the public raised was how they could inflate goals for housing development. He described how there are statutory requirements for the method and pdas are not among the requirements. That said, there are underlying factors such as proximity to transit that are related to both pda and the goals. They are not directly linked nor are influenced by each other. As the sitting member of the executive board i help oversee the committee and nominated the council of Committee Housing organizations to serve on the committee. By another meeting with the staff reaffirmed my believe pdas will play a positive rolls to expand Affordable Housing throughout our city. This past year we laid the groundwork for this work in my district by securing new funding for the west side planner and Needs Assessment and plan to build a Nonprofit Organization focused on developing Affordable Housing on the west side. I am meeting with Planning Department staff biweekly, and i am excited to launch the Planning Initiative next year. We are proactive and arecious about planning and development. We need resources. As i advocate for city funds, regional and state funding will be able to access through the expanded pda designation to expedite the planning goals. Pdas unlocked tens of millions of dollars in planning, capital and transportation funds for the city. I look forward to making this available citywide to all districts. I hoped to pass this out of Committee Last week. We continued it to today to allow for additional input and feedback from the public. Given the very limited outreach by the Planning Department and plaque of Community Process there continues to be misinformation and rumors about Priority Development areas. With sb50 on the horizon my constituents are rightfully concerned. I want to address those. I will make a motion to pass this resolution out of committee today to be scheduled at the full board for january 14th rather than next week. In the period between now and january 14th, i would urge the Planning Department to work with the offices of the supervisors whose districts include the new proposed pdas, that is districts, 1, 2, 4, 7 to provide clear information to the public about pdas and solicit feedback before a vote at the full board. Joshua is here today to answer questions. Mr. Switsky. Is this something the Planning Department can commit to to engage in more Community Outreach before the january 14th board vote . Good afternoon, yes, supervisor, mar, i would be happy to engage with the supervisors you mentioned and those interested and attends meetings and engage with any constituents that have questions to discuss this further. Great. Thank you. Supervisor peskin, do you have anything . I have no comments i did not make last week. Why dont we go to Public Comment on this item. I do have speaker cards. Are these the only cards or were there others . I have cards for agenda item one and two. These are for agenda item two. You can just come up. Speakers have two minutes please state your first and last name clearly. I will read the names of the cards i have. If you you could line up on your right side of the room. Anyone who hasnt turned in a card is welcome to speak. Please get in line. Eileen boken and californiarin e howard. Eileen boken here on my own behalf. On the overhead is the distribution of modified and proposed pdas for the bay area. It shows a high concentration in San Francisco. From the same meeting, there is a slide showing 44 of the land area within existing pdas is at risk of gentrification or displace meant by the uc berkeley displacement project. This is consistent with what is happening in the mission. According to the documents the pda process began with letters of interest for designation which were submitted in september. The time to begin Community Process should have been before the letter of interest was submitted. Who submitted the letter of interest and what was the content . A letter of confirmation may have been submitted in september. If so, this would be a commitment to complete the pda plans by 2025. There would no locker be the option for longer be the option for the symbolic pda. Was the letter submitted . What was the content. When it was under taken by the gang of four, did anything of these four agencies have the Community Process during this phase . Not that im aware of. Presentations were made by planning after the facto a few community organizations. Planning was out of the loop through most of the process. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Thank you for postponing any vote until we have had the opportunity to learn about and give input during the robust public process. After all of this is for planned bay area 2050. What is the rush . How can weeks or months matter. We are deciding the future of the city. At the meetings i hope the public can ask questions directly to the Planning Department. Why should San Francisco establish more pdas . How are they arrived at . What are the im li the implications e state legislation that is supporting market rate development. Although these areas for for planning purposes, the outcome has been very different. According to m. T. C. , the planning documents the Program ProvidesFinancial Support for planning processes seeking to intensify land uses and supports plans for the greatest potential for land use zoning and policy changes leading to new development. In na San Francisco there is moe intensification of development. I have watched neighborhoods riverich in diversity and charar crushed. I am very concerned that pdas are furthering this process and finishing off the neighborhoods left. Planning can be done without signing to the process. Lets find out what is in the pill before swallowing it. Next speaker. I am erica. I am a long term resident of the sun set. I have two worries about the pdas. One is that they were designated with no Community Input and by the Planning Department. I dont know. That worries me. More importantly, i also engaged a number of years ago now supervisor peskin in the waterfront campaign. I think it is dangerous. I wonder if there is a way with the short comings or the unknowns about the pdas if they could step back from the ocean on both the richmond and the have their say on the waterfront. As the chair said the voters continue to rule. Next speaker. Georgia. I live in d8. I look at at the map to try to understand. The thing that disturbed me was the example from my neighborhood. The pdas expanding up from church to noe. A lot of those blocks are up on the hill, a lot of those blocks have seen very expensive Single Family homes put in, no demolition control because people are alltering homes to make monster roams. It looked like sb50. It was expanding from Church Street past sanchez, then up to noe. I think that is a concerning thing. I hope that d8 supervisor mandelman will look at that and d8 people will be on top of it. It is one piece of it. I think it is indicative of the issues that make people very concerned about the new pda expansion. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you, chairman mar. I am Caroline Kennedy, chair of the improvement club. Like other speakers, i worry about the impact of sb350 and 50 on the proposed pdas. I was delighted to hear you are delaying the vote to january 14th. What we need to know is what will seentor wieners next senator wieners next version impose and how might that impact communitybased planning . How will the pdas work . Will they enable them as you outlined . That is my hope, too, or will they be hamstrung by requirements that bar the most effective elements of communitybased planning. San francisco planning Impact Analysis will be out soon. I am hoping we can see that as well when you make these decisions. My read of the law it blows up the current planning processes and mandates some steps that specifically sb330 limits local Agency Approvals to objective standards which appears to eliminate discretionary processes Like Community planning or input or discretionary review. It imposes limit of five public hearings on any housing development. This could curtail planning. It allows demolition with replacement units at market rate rents. Please wait to finalize both the pdas and the San Francisco proposed amendments to sb50 until we get more information on these elements. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. I guess i agree with most of the speakers so far. I just want to add the element of money that you actually mentioned. Money. Where is it coming from . Pdas getting more money from taxpayers. Taxpayers already have problems dealing with living in a very expensive city. You have bonds you want people to pass and where is this money coming from . It seems like we are raising public debt, public expectations of more, more, more and asking a lot of the public that basically has less and less money to spend on what they need. Right now we have an affordability crisis, affordability gap. How is raising more taxes and raising more expectations of spending more money that we dont have a good idea in todays economic climate . And todays Political Climate . Thank you. Next speaker. I am lower rain petty from district 5. I am a member of senior and disability action, also a member of the San Francisco te tenants union. I am concerned about the public process, about i have been to many town halls and Public Forums run by the Planning Department. A lot of other people, and i find there is only a limited circle of residents that actually end up knowing the meeting is even going on. I would suggest as a public process for the pdas that the town hall be run in each of the districts jointly organized and run by the District Supervisor in conjunction with neighborhood organizations. That will spread the word a lot faster and get more people there. This is a big concern of mine that we do these planning and zoning things with very little public input and very little understanding on the part of the public. I ask you to give serious consideration to how these Public Meetings might be held and who is going to help. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak on this item . Public comment is closed. Thanks to everyone that has shared your perspectives on this resolution to expand pdas in San Francisco. I want to ask the Planning Department to respond to a few of the points that were raised in Public Comment. First of all, i think the concerns around the inadequate sort of Public Notice and public process around this proposal to ban the pdas, i am proposing the board take the vote on this instead of at the december 17th meeting, at the january 14th board of supervisors meeting to allow time for more notice and public input. Mr. Switz ski has committed to working to ensure that you know there is opportunity for the constituents to be able to understand the implications and to weigh in. There were questions raised about the expanded pdas and how they might interface with the housing bills that are pending in the state, particularly sb50 and sb330. Could you respond to that . Sure. I would be happy to. Like we discussed at the last committee hearing, there is no correlation or connection between sb50 as it was previously drafted, and i would expect as it is drafted in the future and the pdas. That is a voluntary framework for funding purposes. It doesnt relate to zoning or development specifically. I would be very surprised or i would say shocked if there was any connection in the future of the bill considering there is a rather uneven voluntary offering of pdas in jurisdictions around the bay area. Given the purpose of sb50, i would be surprised if they used that for any purpose whatsoever in the bill. As it relates to sb330 again. Because the pdas dont implement any zoning changes whatsoever and dont change any underlying zoning, it would have no direct correlation between did implications of sb330 and what actually happens. Pda is an abstract framework used for funding. There was a question about the source of the funding or resources the city would be able to access through the pda and expanded pda designation. Maybe you could talk about that. I am not an expert on the funding available. My understanding it is mostly transportation funding from the state or federal government. The region distributes around for various purposes. There is a certain amount of that honey at th o of that money and they are using that for the planning activities around the region. Thank you so much. Again, maybe moving forward, can we send this item with positive recommendation to the january 14th, 2020 meeting of the full board without objection . I will not object. I want to concur with staff from the Planning Department that there is a difference between pdas and senate bill 50. I realize those things may beacon plated in the minds of some of my friends from the public, but i dont have any problem with the pda legislation item 2. As to item 1, i want to thank supervisor mar who picked up where i left off. I realize that there is a stream of thought that this should be opposed at all costs rather than doing what supervisor mar and other folks are suggesting, which is to oppose unless amended. I think that is the right tactic and strategy. I will concur with the motion or make the motion that supervisor mar has requested. That is item two. I hear a motion on item two to recommend to the january 14th, 2020 board meeting. That gives the Planning Department plenty of time to do more outreach. Mr. Clerk, please call item one. Sorry. I spoke to item one. It is a resolution. Opposing California State Senate bill number 50 offered by senator scott weiner unless further amended. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Just an update on this item. Since we made amendments to the resolution opposing sb50 last week, i sent a letter to state senator wiener included in the Public Record for this file asking we Work Together to address the concerns of his bill and to meet the needs of San Francisco. Senator wiener did not apply but issued a statement encouraging me to focus on Housing Solutions in my district and elsewhere instead of introducing another nonbinding resolution. To be clear i did not introduce another resolution last week. I amended the prior resolution which was duplicated by supervisor brown to clarify the changes to sb50 we would need to see to support it. As we work with our state legislation to addressness concerns with state law, we are laser focused on expanding Affordable Housing opportunities in San Francisco. In my first year in office we have made historic investments in west side planning for Affordable Housing including funding nonprofit staff in d4, Needs Assessment including Affordable Housing needs, working with president yee for a website planner in the Planning Department. 300,000 from state funds for west side Affordable Housing capacity building. I released the first ever jobs housing fit report and passed resolution for this annually, passed a 600,000 bond for Affordable Housing. We passed proposition e to rezone land for affordable anded you you indicator housing. I am strongly supporting the first ever educator