Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 7, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PST

6:00 pm
for five years since governor brown threw out the first idea about this is that one size fits allstate land use policy that getting into the weeds how to do housing and planning at local level is very difficult. it doesn't work for san francisco. it is difficult to make workable period. we have the largest state. we have nearly 400 cities, 50 something counties, massive geography. figure that out on pen and paper. the amendments before you address very real on the ground issues. this isn't just botto bombastic. it is at ground level. i hope the supervisors respect that. this is a falsebinenary of pro or it has made san francisco a
6:01 pm
model. let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. george wooding, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i support affordable housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mar's resolution. i object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be anti-growth. i think that was a terrible position to put you in because i
6:02 pm
know that you are doing the best for the city. as peter just stated, i don't think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of san francisco. i think sb $50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build affordable housing. there is no profit in building affordable housing so it forces developers, even well-meaning once, to build a market rate. rate. it is a massive give away to
6:03 pm
developers to incentivize them, and especially for transportation. when you look at the transportation figures, you see we are running a $22 billion deficit in the next 25 years. that is going to be a disaster. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. i am from the san francisco tenant's union. the union opposes sb50 in its entirety. it is beyond redemption. we do appreciate the hard work you all have done to come up significant amendments to reduce the harm this bill would cause if it goes forward as it is right now. the reason we think the bill is flawed is that it centers the
6:04 pm
interests of landowners and developers and not the people that need housed. this is to increase land values. it is designed for gentrification. that is not a side issue. it is the while point is to make lower priced land become higher priced to make affordable housing more expensive to build. it puttings more pressure on existing tenants on pushing them out. the current lan language is a j. they have to come up with their own plan for when and how they will be gentrified but they don't have a choice. that shows this is on increasing land values. none of this i this is enforcea. it is not a surprise they came up with unusable tenant
6:05 pm
protections. they didn't talk to anybody in the tenant movement how to protect the tenants when gentrification happens. scott weiner only talked to people in other jurisdictions and not folks trying to keep tenants in their homes. we think this is beyond redemption. thank you for doing what you can to save us from the worst aspects of it. please support this resolution. >> thank you. next speaker. >> marlene morgan. corridor neighbors, save muni and sf transit riders. i think we have an example in front of us, the area plan that was put together in 1989 under mayor dianne feinstein. that created a high density
6:06 pm
housing over ground floor retail along the major transit corridor. this is a great opportunity for 30 years to see how to develop housing on the major transit corridor. for the first 20 years there were redevelopment funds available. in the first 20 years under this up zoned transit friendly corridor there was 1500 units built in the first 20 years. i don't have statistics on the bmr units. starting in 2010, there were 1,083 on the venice corridor with 163bmr units. we also have on the corridor another 670 units that are permitted and about 300 of those
6:07 pm
are currently under construction. of those 600 units we have about 90 that are going to bmr. i think we can see if you have something like this in place, it should produce something more than it did. this is why sb50 is not a good idea, not enough control, and we need a lot more better guidelines and better control. thank you. >> good morning. catherine howard. i have a letter from 15 members of the public. it took me two hours for those two signatures and there are more out there. we recommend to the board opposition sb50 out ride. if you propose amendments you are accepting the basic premise the state should dictate
6:08 pm
housing, zoning and land use. san francisco must retain the right to develop our plans for affordable housing. we can use the community-based planning system. first we need statistical information not hand waving about up zoning or other developer driven mantras. the city should prepare a study to include the capacity, number of units under construction. the impact of the legislation on zone capacity, elimination of long-term vacancies, enforcements against illegal air bnb and housing used as corporate hotels. analysis of the infrastructure improvements needed to support the increased housing and a plan to pay for it. any community-based plan should have a vision what the city will look like and what it will be like to live here. will iwill it be attractive anda
6:09 pm
large percentage of wildlife live alongside us to survive. please oppose sb50. set up a community-based planning process to result in an increase in affordable housing, preservation of family friendly neighborhoods and healthy and liveable environment for everyone. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> theresa flanders. i am so glad that we are here discussing this today. we do support the resolution to oppose sb50. the amendments sound so much better, and it is still about for seniors and people with disabilities it is about the unafford built of housing in the city today.
6:10 pm
sb50 says you must build deeply affordable housing. we as the state will also give funding to have subsidie sub sur more family housing with schools, transportation, it would be different. that is not in front of us. speculation, killing our city, our neighborhoods, we would not want sb50 in place. what we need in san francisco may be very different elsewhere. the one size fits all does not work for california. i am really happy that you have these amendments in place. again, the tenant protections that would not be enforceable. this is how people are losing their housing. this is how we are losing so many people as well as losing
6:11 pm
the housing to become market rate as rent control at one time. please, we support this. thank you so much and i hope all supervisors will be on board. >> norma, laurie, renee curran and bruce bowen. >> sb50 is beneficial to the local economy. it provides great opportunity for community participation in the housing market through the hands on process of the material development. to the contribution of small property owners and tenants, investors, contractors and suppliers and draftsmen and building inspectors and sales and leasing agents. it provides for the well-being
6:12 pm
of the individuals and community by reducing commute times anding traffic congestion between home and workplace. through the increased economic activities, sales activities and employment it contributes to that vacuum pulling individuals into employment. superseding the wage base. contributing to consumer dollars along commercial corridors as it increases opportunities for disposable spending. unfortunately, the contention it prevents public from recapturing an equitable portion of the economic benefits must be examined and dispelled. nothing prevents the municipal government from capturing,
6:13 pm
contributing and conferring upon itself substantial economic reward. that increases the house of each new housing unit by substantial initial sum of $100,000, born by the purchaser 10% greater than that of the actual construction. this being prior to the tax and the community benefit district assessments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. bruce owen, improvement be club and land use coalition. thank you for your continuing leadership to oppose the bill. thanks to all who are sepping us fight this. one way to motivate ourselves is a few things to have in the context. first of all, housing
6:14 pm
accountability acts and constraints including demolition controls and the way in which senator wiener ignores it to attack us when we oppose his bill. sb-330 which extends the act in ways still unknown and haven't been analyzed. san francisco plans is trying to do this. it is described as the most far-reaching housing bill in many years. the inner relation with sb50 are unknown. as previously mentioned. existing unused zoning capacity and entitled units is tens of thousands of them and effect on live ability. the additional zoning density from two units to unlimited units. we need to keep this in mind as
6:15 pm
sb50 includes four plex which is up zoning with sb50 annual the existing legislation will have unlimited number of units across the city. sb50 waves maximum controls with the four pluses plus the housing accountability act that is unlimited number of units. what do we get in return? conversion of san francisco into an extension of real estate state. we have to stop this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> rick hall. anti-gentrification activist. i support this resolution, but i would much rather see it being an opposed full stop.
6:16 pm
president yee said we should be exempt from sb50. that fits with what senator wiener is doing carve outs across the state to sell his disastrous bill. la supervisor paul carrets vowed to keep la opposed even if all of los angeles is carved out. he would do that because it is right for the rest of the state and that carve outs from pieces of this bill in order to sell it and impose it on other parts of the state are just wrong. the premise of sb50 that state mandated top down one size fits all plans is wrong, obviously, one size does not fit all. you have heard speaker after
6:17 pm
speaker after speaker tell you what is wrong with this bill, and everything they said is right. but taking the power from our planning commissioners, supervisors and local electives and handing to the developers is wrong. there is so much wrong with is this bill, and with its author. i will read a tweet that came across when i was in the lyft from wiener. supervisors that claim sb50 doesn't be do enough for affordability housing are simply wrong. sb50 is affordable housing. >> thank you. next speaker, please. we can all read the tweets ourselves. thank you.
6:18 pm
>> next speaker. laura foot. the future of sb50 is not going to be decided here. we have lost credibility at the state level about our ability to deal with our own problems. that is just the truth. they do not see us as capable right now of getting our way out of our systematic housing crisis. all of our state elected officials are together saying we need to pass statewide pro-housing legislation. the citizens of san francisco elected those people to go represent us at the state level. i understand this urge to say, no, we can deal with our own problems. i deeply understand that because i, too, want to be able to deal with our own problems. i want us to do everything we
6:19 pm
can to get as much affordable housing built as we can. this body can do a lot more. the people in this room, we disagree about market rate housing. we do agree about the need for affordable housing. we agree about the need for more funding and increasing tenant protections. those are things this body can put time and energy into working on with people you may never have worked with before and may his at sometimes. we have the capacity to decide we have shared priorities and can make progress on those shared priorities. even if we do not agree about sb50, there is far more that binds us together in our priorities than we have been willing to acknowledge. i ask everyone here and that includes the people who think i am terrible to try to do more for the affordable housing we
6:20 pm
say we want. we can do the trailing legislation on prop e to make sure. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> renee curren. i want to echo thanks for the time you have put into these amendments. i support this with one amendment. take out without amendments. this bill was written in bad faith-based on the false smiths that san francisco and -- false myth that we need to build housing for those who currently live on our streets. it does nothing to improve public transit which we need. this is too broken to fix. i disagree with the previous
6:21 pm
speaker. i don't think we all have the same priorities. i believe scott weiner his priority is the real estate industry. since i have a little time left i will quote from songer for scotscott weiner. >> you are a liberal, developer, corporate donations must give you a thrill. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> board rule 1.3.1 prevents you from having any audible interruptions of proceedings, clapping, cheering, hissing or any of that. thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors.
6:22 pm
i am presiden president presideh bury council in district 5. thank you for bringing this amended resolution. thanks to president yee for supporting it. i agree with president yee that san francisco should be exempted. i also state that sb50 should be opposed, but these amendments you have proposed are excellent and should be passed by the board. i would suggest two slight amendments. one use it or lose it clause. two, that you put somehow in the title to oppose or a sb50 and similar housing bills. the number can change. state funding for affordable housing is the need, not developer give aways. we also need transit funding.
6:23 pm
there may be other things that the state could do like local redevelopment agency. our city is made of neighborhoods, and the people who live here are the people who elected you. you should be working for us, not the developer community. thank you. >> good morning. norma guardianshipsia, director of policy for mission economic development. we thank you for bringing this forward. we think it is very important that sb50 be amended. what is at stake is very high. we are talking about housing, land use. there is a couple of words that haven't come up and that is civil rights. houses is a civil right when you have a low income community
6:24 pm
and you know what it is like to have a victim of housing discrimination. we need to talk about how sb50 overlays these issues and how it accelerates displacement and gentrification. hearing the arguments made in favor of sb50. it is not the bill. as it stands it is a prime example of paternalistic policy. mandates are thrust upon the community before they have an opportunity to offer input to the design. community members are told to sit in the back of the bus while self-ap.ed anti-discrimination
6:25 pm
advocates do the driving. that is not acceptable. that is not a san francisco value. i am so glad that san francisco is demanding that we have our san francisco values present in sb50 and if not the bill needs to fail. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good morning. i am laurie leader man. i would like to thank you for developing the amendments to make the needs of communities primary and for being prepared for the battle. i remain skeptical the bill for preempting public input can be opposite. these are essential roles for government. these assign that to local government and communities where it belongs. california is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world and
6:26 pm
most populous state in the u.s. these are further away from public accountability and susceptible to lobbying. this is a recipe for disruption and displacement. compromising is not viable without all of the amendments, sb50 must be opposed. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. corey smith san francisco how, o housing coalition. the authors haven't read the bill or understand what it does. reading some of the inaccurate statementses. page one line 12 less public review this does not change the process. line 15 and 16.
6:27 pm
market rate housing affordable. it helps them move in and 70% of low income live in market rate housing. 2 23 and 24 talks about managing growth. we live in the most unaffordable citych. city ever. lines 4 and 5. we can do area plans. nine and 10 talk about specific neighborhoods. previous speaker mentioned concerns in the mission. the reality this will alter zoning on two alleys in the mission as a whole. they were the first developer to use sb35. i hope we can look forward to meta building the housing.
6:28 pm
we are going to experience significant barriers to production. this will increase the amount of affordable housing in san francisco. overall, the more home act is good for san francisco. it will result in more housing. that is why the nonprofit housing association of northern california, state building trades and labor federation support this. i am embarrassed by this resolution. thank you. >> policy director for chinatown development center. chinatown is proud of this resolution and thank you, supervisor mar for introducing it. sb50 and we have read it.
6:29 pm
fundamentally it takes away an important process right called democracy. we need a democratic process, one that the state does not provide for us to protect local communities against displacement. in 1986 after the eviction of the hotel and the evictions of many residents, chinatown came together as a community and adopted the chinatown plan which has protected it since then from market rate development and protected existing residents and small businesses. that flan will be disrupted and underlined by sb50. our basic zoning in chinatown is 35 feet. everything above requires a c .u. sb50 will up zone everything to
6:30 pm
55% and eliminate the c .u. process. we are told by the legislators we don't have to worry because we have sensitive communities. we will have sensitive communities protection for a five year period during which time we have to revisit. this will include additional development. five years and eliminating existing plan to rewrite that i am possed by sacramento is not what we need. >> next speaker, please. peter with the economic development agency. i will address as many as i could get to of incorrect statements. as far as mission is concerned
6:31 pm
including what we just heard if you saw it from the gentleman from chinatown's map he posted dozens of parcels within the latina cull surgical district. there is no public process. it doesn't limit. that resolution might be strengthened to say it eliminated it. we have a planning process before we mass up zone. that takes i it away. you are not allowed to create a area plan for the neighborhood. northeast zone is up zoned. we don't say we are doing massive building here so maybe the area in the cultural district might be under the height levels. that is not allowed. it is a buy right kind of zoning. that makes no sense, particularly in communities that have been targeted historically
6:32 pm
as well as right now. right now the mission incorrectly at the 25% level we heard discussion projects are coming forward. land is bought, projects are developed and put into the pipeline. that is happening as well. i think i want to highlight this builds no housing. it starts by saying, give away billions of dollars to landowners and developers and hope they decide to build housing. in san francisco let's have almost zero value recapture. there isn't any. there is no increase over affordability. we have no more afford built, no transit infrastructure money. >> thank you. if there is anyone else that would like to speak on this item, please line up.
6:33 pm
>> thank you for holding this meeting. i love to talk last. it is great to have the last word. i will register my support for sb50 and disappointment at those trying to run out the clock on this bill. i think the scale of the crisis in the bay area in california bears repeating. we have 30,000 people homeless in the bay area with a growing co-heart of -- cohort of those traveling 90 minutes or more to work. this is a huge crisis that demands a big solution. i think those who are seeking to obstruct, impede, run out the clock are complicit in letting this crisis continue. that is the bottom line, and those of you up there and out there who like to call
6:34 pm
yourselves progressive are the closest to reactionaries on this. conservatives that think we can improve the housing condition in san francisco by turning back time. that is not going to happen. we need progress and we need a big combprehensive solution to make it happen. the make san francisco great again coalition isn't -- thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> before we go to the next speaker reminder to the other folks here. there is a prohibition in 1.3.1 into interrupting the speaker. yewe need to listen to the speaker. >> i am alice mosely, resident of district five. i want to point out that the history of all planning
6:35 pm
legislation has been an attempt to make it more democratic, to increase public participation. this is very actionary in that respect. otherwise we are going to end up with the disasters in the 1960s where developments go forward without public input. we should not have a bill that is built to let market forces rip in san francisco. that is what will happen if we don't stop this bill. thank you. >> anyone else in the public to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone who spoke out this morning on this. actually everyone who has been speaking out about this bold and
6:36 pm
in my opinion i think in most people's opinion deeply flawed effort by supervisor wiener to impose one side fits all mandates on san francisco. over the past two years, actually. i did want to respond to a lot of the comments we heard today and we have received through e-mail and other communications. the board should take a position of opposing sb50 full stop without considering amendments. i sympathize with that. i agree with the deep concerns that people have raised about sb50, and the questions that whether it can be amended to be a positive thing for san francisco. i did want to say last week president yee and i had a chance
6:37 pm
to sit down with senator wiener about sb50 and his intentions to bring it back in january. he did indicate to us he has heard the concerns we raised through the board resolution and the wide range of concern raised by residents in san francisco about the impact in our city in our affordable housing crisis. he was considering amendments in january that would address the concerns around allowing for community planning to address the needs of our communities, especially the affordable housing needs. he indicated he was considering amendments to address concerns of communities experiencing displacement and how they with be -- how that could be further
6:38 pm
accelerated by sb50. he wasn't willing to go into detail last week about the specifics. we had to take him for his word on that. i think from that meeting we felt it was important to move ahead here with the board resolution that really specifies what amendments or changes need to be made in sb50 for the city and county of san francisco to remove opposition to the bill. that is why we are moving the resolution today. i have introduced the set of amendments that i have gotten input on from a wide range of stakeholders. i wanted to say we all about need to do our part to preserve
6:39 pm
and build afford ability housing to meet the need of our community. including 18,000 units of affordable housing in the city with the next item we will talk about a proactive step to expand affordable housing. we are not waiting for mandates. while we work to move forward we must engage in good faith to represent the needs of our city. that is the intention of the resolution. i will submit a letter today requesting an open die long to engage in our community planning efforts. we want to build more and we want to do it with real protections against displacement and value. not just giving it away to private developers. >> supervisor brown.
6:40 pm
>> there was one amendment i had given you eight months ago. on your amendment 5, which is tenant protections, it says ensure clear and strong tenant protections and anti demolition provisions with funding and protecting the tenants triggered by up zoning. one of the things i had worked with senator wiener on eight amendments that he said that he would work on when he comes back in january. the one that i thought that we should really look at and maybe you could really put this forward to him is a application cost to hawkins to allow greater protections. it would we see to see sb50
6:41 pm
coupled with ab36 to loosen and to allow cities to place represent control on buildings 10 years or older and certain homes with certain exceptions. >> we were able to have the cities are to control -- have more control of tenant protection. i would ask him if he would push for that and he said he would. i would put that. that will be more tenant protections that we can work within the city. >> thank you. we will include in the follow-up which we hope supervisor wiener will engage in us with. >> i would like to move that we accept the amendments that i presented today. can we do that without
6:42 pm
objection? >> great. as these amendments are substantive i move we continue this until next week, december 11th. can w we do that without objection? >> thank you everyone for being here. mr. clerk please call item 3. agenda item 3 resolution authorizing the planning department to apply on behalf of the city and county of san francisco to confirm existing and create new and revised priorities development areas, conservation and production areas by the association of bay area governments and transportation commission. as part as the plan bay area update. >> to introduce this item. i am proud to sponsor this legislation along with
6:43 pm
supervisor fewer. it is important to plan for our own future, to say where we want to see more housing andy sign it with community stakeholders for complete communities. state mandates aren't the only tool. they are an important way to direct planning for more housing and to accessory sources and funding. we have talked about community plans. i want to highlight the role pdas can play. it helped to lead $88 million. 75% of which were specifically only for pdas. a share of the other 25% went to projects within pdas. this is only local improvements. a larger amount of transit has
6:44 pm
been designated. we have seen the planning grants supporting the planning efforts in san francisco including market octavia, central soma, treasure rye land. the rail yards, market street mobility, mission san jose study and by county the pda access study. they unlocked millions of transportation funds. gary blt. caltrain election. chinatown broadway improvements. masson nick improvements and
6:45 pm
long fellow safe routes to school. wwe want to expand and see improvements to the west side of the city. we are doing the work locally to make it happen. we are doing it with the needs of the community at the center. i would like to welcome you. >> good morning. on behalf of the planning department we are thankful for the sponsor ship. if i could have the slides, please. just i will be brief. these designations are in the plan bay area. it is the 30 year regional plan conducted by the association of bay area governments and the met
6:46 pm
lynn transportation commission. they are required under the state laws to produce this regional plan that is updated every four years to link transportation and land use and though how the region will house all of the population over the next 30 years. the last time it was adopts was 2017. they are called for renewed and revised applications by local jurisdictions for these designations. the growth framework is the plan and how we will house our population over 30 years. link that to transportation. there are three designations,
6:47 pm
first the priority development. they are planning for housing growth and jobs. they are urban areas. pleases not green field but within the bay area. >> anybody sites are natural wild landings and areas that cities and counties and park districts are looking to conserve and preserve the open spaces for the environment and the population. then the priority production area, which is recognizing the role of industrial land in both supporting blue kolarian middle sage jobs. san francisco is a leader and we are happy to pick up on that as well.
6:48 pm
this is the current designations across the region. you can see the pdas in the urban core and this is a map of the san francisco designated priority development areas. it is heavily concentrated in the eastern half of the city with the exception of the southwest corner of the city. it is a stark east-west divide. it covers the area plans the city adopted over the last two decades and the other denser neighborhoods in the northeast part of the city. what is it? it is an urban area cities are planning for job growth and housing growth. the region has tried to expand the definition of performe of pn
6:49 pm
for more housing and not focused on only transit-rich areas. what you have called high resource areas, which are areas that have a lot of jobs and have other urban resources. >> schools and parks that are good to provide an opportunity where to live. it is just not about the transit association. >> the voluntary system is ground-up. local governments say we are planning for more housing here, trying to do the right thing. there is an incentive. there is no regional land use control. each development is controlled
6:50 pm
by individual jurisdictions. the region has a series of carrots to offer to help influence and support development pattern that is most sustainable and meets the goals. as supervisor marmentioned there are grant programs. what are pdas? >> they are not an override of land use control, they do not bind the city to achieve any growth targetses or take zoning actions. those are up to the cities to determine for them, what it might look like. many how that would lay out. it doesn't require similar treatment across the same pda. they can be planned as we see fit that are appropriate for the
6:51 pm
context. >> the transit priority areas. blue are the areas that cities have already designated as pdas. it is a minority of the well served areas. the red includes a significant share of san francisco and the south and east bay they haven't designated pdas and san francisco has the largest acreage not designated to date. high resource side this is a map slowing that analysis of areas of the region in very close proximity to jobs and urban infrastructure. san francisco lights up the
6:52 pm
larger shares of the peninsula. they should be building housing. why should we expand in san francisco? it provides the ability to tap more resources to support community planning and planning and investment in infrastructure in these areas where we think housing is appropriate and san francisco has received over $60 million just for pdas in terms of planning over the last decade. it is also a signal. it is proactive signal we are undertaking these housing conversations. we are not just putting our heads in the sand. we are looking at how best to another meet the housing needs over the entire city and not just one point of the city. the last point is equity in terms of making this a city-wide conversation.
6:53 pm
what is each neighborhood's role in providing housing for the city, not just east side responsibility. the planning department and sister agencies feel it is a good time to expand to have this conversation. the map that is part of the resolution that was drafted as a concept by the planning department in cooperation with our other sister city agencies, which have representatives here today, they are proposing a map that would expand to include all of the 11 districts including d1, d2 and d4 and mine other expansions in d5 as well. all major corridors would have some pda as well as additional areas. just to reiterate the colors on
6:54 pm
the map are not indicating anything other than we need to designate the boundaries. it should be a planning district. that is for the board's consideration in terms what those exact boundaries should be. to reiterate the exact boundaries where the pda falls doesn't bind us to the entire pda or that exact geography but is a notion of the aspect where to undertake planning. on the priority conservation to switchgears. san francisco is a lot less rural than some other counties in the bay area. we have significant regional assets to continue to get resources for.
6:55 pm
we center limited amount of pdas today and the hills and canyons around the twin peaks and glen canyon. the proposal before you is expansion to include the central waterfront, the basin, and effort to expand connection to parks, the ocean beach and golden gate park and northern waterfront and improvements to the bay trail as well as the island with environmental remediation that is going on. lastly, the priority production areas. the one area that is proposed to be removed, i will put it back to the pda map to be removed is the largest industrial area in
6:56 pm
the creek and bayshore area. it is the largest most important industrial area. we are proud to redesignate that, we propose that as the first priority production area, and we would hope that the board would support submitting that, and the program would also be put in place by resources designated to support industrial uses with transportation improvements and work force programs. there are other areas the city is supporting in other parts of the city that are more fragmented and less substantial. some are within a close proximity to regional rail stations, which makes them not meet the standards in terms of the region consideration. m.t.c. did say that any pdr areas we have in the pdas
6:57 pm
would share the access to resources made available to the priority production areas. that concludes my presentation. the timeline is such that is regional agencies asked for a deadline mid-january for the local jurisdictions to submit nominations, which includes the board of supervisors per visor's action endorsing these. we hope we can meet that deadline. with that i am happy to take any questions. >> thank you for the presentation and for your work on this. do you have any questions? before we go to public comment, i would like to offer amendments to the resolution just to highlight the spirit and intent of the de designations. you should have received the copy of the amendments and first
6:58 pm
in consultation with president yee, i would like to amend to separate proposed sunset corridors and sunset hills into two pdas, sunset and west portal station area with a noter south line down 15th avenue. to affirm or position affordability housing planning should happen within from structure planning with other community needs. it reaffirms or goal to establish the planning policy and the success in the plans and challenges and having goals for moderate and low income households. that specific challenges deserve community driven solutions. pdas are one tool to unlock funding to act on the challenges of our city. as executive board area of bay area governments overseeing the
6:59 pm
allocations i will make sure we are account annual to the intent of the designations today and urge you to accept amendments. we can move to public comment on this item. i have speaker cards. eileen, peter, catherine howard, barry and s susanna parsons. >> eileen broken. i am on my own behalf. i am strongly urging the committee to continue this item. this request is based on information from yesterday's meeting. at this meeting there was a presentation on priority development areas. additionally, there were discussions and presentations on possible changes to the arena for the current cycle, upcoming
7:00 pm
jurisdiction survey and new requirement housing elements contain equity provisions. based on statements at the meeting there could be statements to the method where priority development would have increased allocations. i am urging the board of supervisors soups and planning commission hold a joint meeting. the purpose to hear directly from the staff on the presentations regarding priority development areas and the current cycle method. i would strongly urge the board to require the planning department make a presentation to them which clearly demonstrates the current pdas have been effective. at this point in time i believe the committee does not have sufficient information to move forward on this item withouts a full and complete understanding what is going on and i am urging