[speaking foreign language]. Tenants are forced out of homes due to competition for Affordable Housing,s especially in soma. Developers need to wake up soma is not exclusive. Soma needs the housing. Lets support the jobs housing linkage fee. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am amanda representing the coalition on homelessness. We would like to voice support for updating the jobs housing lynx age fee linkage fee. It will ensure accountability to ending the housing crisis. We have the opportunity to generate 500 million over the next 10 years to allocate to constructing more Affordable Housing, preserving already Affordable Housing and building additional Supportive Housing. We urge you to stand up for housing justice in San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am susan. I am a 20 year resident of San Francisco and former nurse at San Francisco general. I have been running a Small Business for 15 years. I work with the coalition. I am here in support of this legislation. I think it is a step in the right direction. I think it is an extremely modest fee. My only criticism, i think it should be three times what it is. Yes, i definitely support it. What is happening in our city is heart breaking. I live in d5, and i see luxury automobiles driving past people sleeping on the street every day. I walk past people sleeping on the street. It is heartbreaking. It is taxing the Office Developers seems like a logical thing to do with no question whether or not to support this legislation. It is incredibly heart breaking and cruel that we have so many wealth and so many people on the street. I hope that you will support this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am curtis bradford. I am the cochair of tenderloin Peoples Congress and organizer for the development corporation. We are here in support of this legislation the way it is written. I mean, honestly, we are thinking about the situation as we see it now, the crisis in the city, housing, homeless crisis. A lot of problems are severely amplified by the Massive Development of office and commercial space without Subsequent Development of housing. That is devastating to the mission and soma and impacted the tenderloin. The truth is that Unchecked Development is bad for the city. It is bad for the communities and it is our residents paying the price for the development. They continue to pay the price both physically and financially. It is time to put responsibility back on the developer. The fee increase is not over the top. If i had my way, i would think bolder. The crisis seems worth bold decisions. Ththe modest change is the chaos we have seen on the streets. I ask you to pass this and support it. We need the money for apAffordable Housing. It is the right thing to do. Thank you. Business next speaker. Good afternoon, jordan davis, district 6 resident. I support supervisor haneys jobs linkage fee update. I will tell you one thing. It did not go far enough. We are are to need Affordable Housing the city citys nexus e should charge 193. Supervisor haney has a modest proposal, but lets face it, people in the whatever are claiming it is only feasible if we jack it up by 10 bucks. That is not going to cut it, and that is bad Public Policy. To give you a daunting statistic. A baby born in the year this jobs housing linkage fee was last updated would have already completed college and would be looking for work. If that baby was born in San Francisco, they would have a hard time finding housing no matter what. I am glad we are going to basically like with new development and with great power to affect Development Comes great responsibility. We need the housing. I am also glad that 30 of the funds will be going to new Supportive Housing. I live in an rfo. I it is on the task force. I dont want people with low income tenants competing with less lowincome people for sro housing. We shouldnt be fighting for scraps. I am just like sickened by the idea. If we max out the fee, it is going to stop all Office Development. Well, that is bogus. Believe me, if the worst was to come to past, all Office Development stopped, it wouldnt be any worse than what we have now. If we continue to have this very insignificant nominal fee it will keep getting worse. Please make the right decision. Lets jack up this fee, build in actually Affordable Housing and not luxury housing. Lets do the right thing and also reconsider then maxing it out. Lets face it i am a socialist and i like to push the envelope. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am catherine. I have lived in San Francisco since 1975. I came here as a student and raised two children. I ai representing the south of market group. I am a single parent. I have worked until 20 years ago. I have experienced homelessness. My daughter was raised in sro. She is 25. If this job linkage fee would have been increased every year there would be housing built for people of low income or people who could afford it, i dont think our homeless crisis would be as great as it is. It is really important to pass this and even though matt haney has suggested 60 to start with. I honestly think we should think boulder. For so long having Affordable Housing at the low income for teachers has been neglected in the city. It is very stressing to realize maybe i wouldnt have been homeless, maybe my daughter could have had a better life. There are so many people leaving the city because they cant afford to be here. Their jobs are here so they commute. The cost of the commute is great. Why cant we have enough housing here to keep it so people at the lowest who may not make that great of an income may be able to live in a better condition and to avoid having a lot of stress because when you have to commute back and forth to the city on low income, it is stressful on you and your family. People have been here for so long have to move somewhere else to afford to live. We really need to pass this. I would really appreciate it very much, like i said, if we could push it higher, i would say go for it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am theresa. I am a long time resident of the soma philippine Cultural Heritage district. I am one of those tenants, and our families and fellow tenants in the building that went through four eviction cases, three different landlords. Three different lan landlords, t we won all of those four. Because community support, our families worked hard for this. It is heartbreaking for me when i walk on the streets of San Francisco, all of these tall buildings, high buildings, actually sprouting up especially in district 6. It is inside soma philippine. I want to share that i dont have a good experience with the planning committee. This Planning Commission. Before it seemed like we were led to believe, go ahead and speak, but behind the scenes something was already in the works. I dont appreciate that. I dont appreciate developers who come inside the neighborhood, they dont have any care, no sensitivity, no mindfulness, no awareness. [please stand by]. Dot housing linkage, which was introduced by district six supervisor, haney. The proposed amendment before you, address the growing demand for Affordable Housing. The Veterans Center has been a Service Writer for 20 years, and serves the very low income, older adults and others within submit disabilities in the city. Affordable housing, for our consumers, when they become available from the city, they are extremely difficult to navigate. Preservation or acquisition of assisting existing housing. Dedication at the potential with the fees for all project which is only allowed for central soma project with Additional Resources and opportunity, the proposed amendment, to the existing job house edge housing linkage fee will eliminate the crisis and give relief to those in dire need of a formal housing. We commend the San FranciscoPlanning Commission to approve the proposed amendment to the current job housing linkage fee. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am gina, i am here to support the legislation and update on the job housing linkage fee. This linkage fee has not been updated since 1997. Which has led to lackluster development on a portal housing. With rising rents we have seen families pushed out because of a lack of affordable unit while most developers prioritize commercial development and luxury market rate units. In order to find find Affordable Housing in soma, the city, the city must increase the jobs housing linkage fee. When the jobs housing linkage fee is increased and updating, there should be more Affordable Housing so families on the respectable applicant on the Affordable Housing waitlist will be placed in these units. Increasing the jobs housing linkage fee for Affordable Housing will reduce rampant displacement identification among families and communities of color. Please update and increase the jobs housing linkage fee, because it is overdue. We are in 2019, going into 20, not 1997. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. We are in full support of this legislation. An upset update to an existing jobs housing linkage fee should have been done years ago. Since 2018, we have been demanding the release of the updated nexus study on the jobs housing linkage fee from the office of economic and workforce development, during the central soma hearing. We do not know how long is set on the desk of oewd staff. What is clear, this report should have been released during the hearing of central soma hearing plan. The study was nonpublicly released until june of this year. This kind of report is really important to be part of public discussion since we see the impact of of new commercial developments in our community. Commercial development, especially Office Develop and has impacts to the existing communities and neighborhood and San Francisco. We have seen rapid gentrification and displacement as a result of the first, and Second Technology boom that comes with speculation and highrises Office Development. We want to thank supervisor haneys office and continuing this work, and working with us, and our partners in getting the legislation in front of you today. The jobs housing linkage fee is not new for the city. When it was increased in the late 90s, the same issue we are bringing up today which was Office Development create massive impact to existing neighborhoods in San Francisco. The city acknowledge that this development had an impact in these fees are necessary to mitigate those impacts what we are talking about our existing these. They are not new. This legislation is simply an update to this existing fees. One that has been kept artificially low, which has been an additional profit benefit to developers. It is way past time for this we need to prioritize the development of Affordable Housing. We need to preserve the existing housing, the impacts of this Luxury Development must be mitigated, in the highest standard. Not what gives more benefit to the Developers Area thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners i am alyssa dao, i am a student intern from San Francisco state university. We support the legislation, and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee. The economic displaced and, of the community, has been in a effect of the gentrification cost with the boom of Tech Industries coming into the city. This reflects how the Tech Industry grows is top priority, and not the needs, nor the welfare of the people of the community. Our community does not need to prioritize the needs of highrises, things. But rather, we need to prioritize more affordable, and equitable housing for the sake of our community. We need to ship the job housing talent shift the job housing balance, by making it equitable for the people in the families that are originally from the city and the community. This is why it is essential to fundamentally change the citys priorities through the update of the exist linkage fee for housing. Our people first, not corporations. With that, i urge you to support this legislation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, my name is alexa, i am also a resident in the south of margate and i support the legislation and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee. One of the speakers earlier, i think jordan, was thinking about babies, i think that baby is me, i was born and raised in the south of market, im in college, but ironically i am actually going through a housing issue where, in high school, i was evicted one in 2014. Right now im going through a foreclosure and it in one year. Our building, likely having tenant rights and organizing my building to fight this foreclosure, whatever dirty deeds the bank is doing. The constant thought is, how are we going to keep our housing . Living in San Francisco there is rent control, there is tenant rights, there is always this thought of what is going to happen if we get this lease from our home . The first thing everyone thinks about is Affordable Housing, we are going to apply for that. Even with Affordable Housing, it is tough. It always feels like it is a competition. There are 3,000 people applying for Affordable Housing. The fact that there is not even availability of housing, in the area, that is really disappointing. The fact that the last time these were raised was what i was born in 1997. I think it is time for a raise in the system to be uptodate, and also the updated fees would generate over 500 million over the next decade which would produce about 2,000 new units over the next ten years. If anything, i urge you to support this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, commissioners. My name is ramon. I am a resident of district 6, the market area. I support the legislation and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee, because many of our existing tenants are being pushed out doing to the growing competition for affordable units, especially near the area where with concentrated Office Construction area. Development should pay for its fair share to house its workers. According to the city, at least one of every three Office Workers [inaudible] cannot afford market rate housing. When a date has been anticipated for many years, and it has been overdue. I just urge the commissioners to support this legislation, and thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is sam luke on my work at the coalition of homelessness, i was also born and have watched my city change a lot, for the worse, over the past 25 years i have lived here. I am in support of the jobs housing linkage fee. Particularly for the fact that 30 would go towards housing. Those units go to people who are experiencing homelessness. The other reason why i am in support, when we are talking about this fee, it talking about tackling the homelessness and housing crisis. Were not talking about something that is sterile, we are talking about people who are literally dying on our streets every day. One of the things that has happened to me, since working at the coalition on homelessness. I have been two more funerals and memorials and any other time in my life. We are literally seeing people die by day, languishing on our city streets. Right now, there is 1,098 people on the shelter waitlist. The oldest person on that list is 89 years old. These are our seniors, these are people that are the most honorable people and without Something Like updating this fee , we are not going to have enough Affordable Housing units and permanent Supportive Housing unit to really address and tackle this issue. The other thing i want to bring up is that people are always talking about the homelessness crisis area the fact is, 70 of Homeless People were housed before they became homeless. We have to begin to invest in Real Solutions to actually prevent homelessness before people are out on the streets, which is one of the things that this piece of legislation redo. We are at a point where the department of homelessness will tell someone like me, and other community members, hey, you have to choose whether you want us to house a pregnant woman leaping on the streets, or a homeless family that is being on the streets. We know in a city as rich as San Francisco, we do not have to choose between housing two of those vulnerable populations. We can house everyone here. That is why we have to pass legislation like this, that will actually invest in the millions of dollars to build the units that we need. This is a common sense moderates, and effective measure to ensure that people are not evicted and the people in our community are not dying. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. I am calling. I work for Tenderloin Neighborhood Development and i lost my voice grade im just going to say that we support supervising supervisor haneys 2014. 0926dnx. Sorry. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, im the Community HousingPublic Policy and i work with former Homeless People in support of. We provide a portal housing and help those residents residents achieve selfsufficiency. These update fees would generate 500 million towards 2,000 new units in ten years. 10 of those funds would go to the acquisition and preservation of existing Affordable Housing and 30 would go to building new Supportive Housing. Homeless people who are no longer needing supportive intervention also need next step housing that is deeply affordable to thrive once stabilized on the recovery path from homeless trauma. These kinds of fees have never been the determining factor in development. If we were truly to meet the Affordable Housing needs resulting from the Office Development, the cities own nexis study says we should be charging 193 per square foot. I think we are talking about 66 here, that is not enough. This is the fee Developers Pay to cover the fair share of housing the workers. From my perspective, is a Community Organizer with formerly Homeless People, who was formerly homeless myself. I see every Office Building going up as deeply Affordable Housing case that my neighbors on the streets will not be moving into. This fee covers the impacts of Office Development land use so that the deeper Affordable Housing can be built. It is supported by seven supervisors, the council of Community Housing organizations, and deeply Affordable Housing advocates, like myself, and our communities. Community Housing Partnership endorses and supports the allegation that can be agreed to. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is teresa imperial, i am a d7 resident, and i work in south market. This, just like everyone said, has been long overdue. I urge you to jack it up. [laughter] well, you know, the cost of living here in San Francisco has always been increasing. Even just the transportation cost. It is always increasing twice per year. This jobs housing linkage fee has not been updated since 1997. I remember three years ago we had requested previous supervisors to actually look into this, and you know, the oewd did not release a study, even though there was already a nexis study. That is really infuriating, in terms of having this Public Knowledge not to be out. So, this legislation, it is a practical legislation. I know it is going to go to the board of supervisors. It will probably be discussed whether, should we go up to 69. 6. There should be no more compromises at this point. This is already a compromise. The study itself already says it should be 193 and it should be more than that, probably 300 per square foot. But, you know, this is where youre at. For us, we urge you to support this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello everyone, jack stevens, i am a frisco native, born and raised, so my resident soma resident. I support my commissioner for this proposal. I am a Second GenerationUnion Household worker. My mother was a nurse at st. Lukes. My father was a laborer for Labors International local 261. They are both shot stuart. I myself am a shop steward. As a worker in the city, as a union worker in the city, as a frisco native, especially working delivering packages downtown where all the stuff is going down, with a 103 zip code. I see a massive welding boom. I have been getting text all throughout the last couple of hours, i appreciate your guys patients. I know it can be taxing to sit here. We appreciate it. Im getting test text from my coworkers that they say they support this linkage fee. Im just beginning as a shop steward and a driver. I have a lot of coworkers that cannot afford to live here. I, myself, and barely affording a onebedroom apartment. We have my coworkers making 17 18 per hour, hauling freight making 36 per hour. Most of them have moved. We have to do 1. 52 hour commute we have one person coming from stockton until they were able to transfer to a better location for them and their family for their commute to be cut by 75 . This linkage fee is really important to address the Affordable Housing basis was on the city. I know there was some form of a linkage fee, or something, around 1987 that was followed by a housing boom. And then the linkage fee was as it is now. 1997. That was also followed by a building boom. Me and my coworkers, when we see the housing being developed we dont see the linkage fee as something that is a negative or positive on a boom. If there is a building bus, it doesnt matter if the linkage fee is 1 dollar. If there is a building boom, doesnt matter if the linkage fee is 100, there is going to be a boom. The Builders Building tempe union rates and wages for those buildings. Sometimes they dont want to, the city needs to backup up my union and sisters doing those objects. They can easily afford the increase that my District Supervisor is proposing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am i out, and i work at the council of. I am here in report of the supervisor haneys legislation to date the jobs housing linkage fee. This legislation is really about housing our cities workers had it is about housing our cities most vulnerable residents. Its not just about a fee, this is about our city in the future of our city. Commissioner koppel, you had mentioned earlier, the importance of protecting residents that already live here , and prioritizing displacement. This legislation will do that. Workers in San Francisco deserve to live where they work if they want to. They deserve to live in the Community Whether community is they do not deserve to have to move further from their families, just because they cannot afford, or because they got evicted. They really just deserve to live in the community that they serve if we were to truly meet Affordable Housing, resulting from the Office Development. The citys nexis analysis says we would be charging 193. I know you guys already know that. What wasnt mentioned yet, is this analysis does not include the contract workers. Like the janitors that are working in these buildings i know it might deem astronomical to say, 300, and im not saying we need to go there, but this does exclude a lot of our workers. So, i want to foz re without saying it is time to reimagine how our city houses our workers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is [ name indescernible , i come as a resident of San Francisco, typically the tenderloin. I work in San Francisco with my wife area we have been living together now for over ten years. We reside in a rentcontrolled studio that we have worked hard to hold onto. Just to echo one of my colleagues, there is that over our head, where we do not know if we can stay here. We actually cannot hear if we get this lease from our current judeo. We both work because on the city. I have worked in the city for ten years, as a family caseworker. The Affordable Housing process is not accessible. I am in support of the linkage fee. I think it is a small part of it and theres a lot more work that needs to be done. Obviously with the current homeless situation. Our families having to constantly compete to have a roof over their heads, whether it is in a shelter, or a regular sro. They have to compete to have a place for you there is obviously something very sick with our whole housing system. As our public servants, all of you are accountable for the most vulnerable people. Thank you. Twenty thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is leanne, i am a Community Engagement organizer at the south of market immunity action network. I support the legislation and the update to the existing jobs housing linkage fee. So many wasted effort has been spent focusing on this. Ever since its last update in 1997. Within our community, planning work and our Data Analytics and Community Development intern have idolized a rise of 1000 . In terms of the rise of Tech Companies in soma, to the tax break in tran11. How many people have had evictions since then . How many success rates have we had on Affordable Housing since then . How many apartment had been slipped to four airbnb and pushed out tenant since then . How much traffic has increased for workers commuting outside of the bay area to soma since then . Fees in s. F. Have never been the determining factor development. It base rate was set in 1997. The current fee is based off a 22yearold housing cost and office density. It is time to work together, and bring the fees up to date. In queue. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners, corys death on behalf of San FranciscoHousing Action coalition. We are going to support the fee i whatever point produces the most total dollars for subsidized afford housing. That is the goal of our organization to try to get as much money assistance as possible. Weve also seen a growing concern when the city does Economic Feasibility analysis for a variety of different things. Perhaps exceeding those limits. In 2016 and subsequently we believe we sought a dip in construction of subsidize afford housing. Whatever it does get that out, whatever is getting the most anti for, that is up lately our goal. Secondly, while we realize this does not change anything for our members, our members that express frustration over the process with the rules changing for people in the pipeline, again that is a conversation back in 2016. We just always believed we could agree on a set of rules and stick to those roles throughout the entire process and make clear for everybody involved. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is nick, ive been a tenant activist for more than 25 years. I used to serve on the Steering Committee of the San Francisco tenant unit. I am fully supportive of this measure. It probably doesnt go far enough, and i cant believe you would not pass this. If you have any sense of the future of Affordable Housing, and though it housing, and how to deal with frankly far too overwhelming crisis in so many ways regarding workers right, and workers ability to survive. It is affecting so many businesses. Cafes are going out of businesses. Business. So many businesses cannot afford to pay people enough to live here. It is affecting everyone that lives here. I urge you to pass it. My only concern, frankly beyond that, is whether we can get it to the board of supervisors with this prodevelopment mayor. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am with the council of Community Housing organizations. I read the memo. I want to quote one line from it. The Feasibility Study finds that for new projects being developed today, Development Cost are so high that revenues do not justify new Office Development even at the existing fee levels. I think i would ask the Mayors Office of Economic Development to open their door, stepped out and count how many cranes are Building Offices right now. It reminds me, and calvin mentioned earlier, it seems like 10 is this ongoing thing. Dan you might have been there, i know josh was around when the Mayors Office of Economic Development said the most we can build or that we could justify a fee was a 4 a square foot. I think that advanced level got up to 1011. Supervisor daily, at that time, sat down with developers and i think he had a little inside information to move some assumptions around. He said it would about 25 per square foot. When they didnt jump back, he called back to the community and said, well, i think weve got a deal. I think it tells the story that these feasibility studies always say the same thing. What we have to do is look at the reality of what has happened in the past. According to the study, at least one of every three new workers in the Office Development cannot afford rocket rate housing. At least. What supervisor haney has come up with, setting a b at one third of the nexus seems like a reasonable approach. It is in line with the other fees that we have. I think one of the things that is important to remember is that no matter where we end up with this fee. Right now we have the lowest Office Vacancy rate, in the nation, second with office rent, second only to manhattan. Fees have never been a determining factor in development. I think her than that, one of the things we have to keep in mind is that the people who build office things, the Union Workers who have those jobs, are also the Union Workers who build our Affordable Housing. There is a Multiplier Effect that we have to keep in mind [bell ringing] these fees are creating more union job out of the office all day that is going to continue to happen in San Francisco. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon again. Peter papadopoulos with mission Economic Development agent the and also this time as well [inaudible] we strongly support resetting the fee at one third of the nexus level. We think that is a very fair level. I want to detail some reasons why we think that is more than fair. Given some other issues that we think are being fully captured even and some of the argument. Sfgovtv may have the overhead please . I wanted to look at this scenario. Will much of what we are looking at is recapturing, it makes sense, the Affordable Housing required to house the folks who expect to come in under the scenario. But then we also have the folks that are not captured in that mechanism, if we are to believe the ted egan report of 2018, we can expect high income earners to be one of the principal drivers of our housing cost in our markets. That will also have to be captured in some way. That is one other thing we are trying to fairly mitigate four. Another component is, i know this was done, based on our 2,017th buddy to look at Square Footage per office worker. Those numbers seem kind of high to us. Square feet of Office Workers still. The cornet global number for north america, at this foz is 151 square feet per worker. Our trends have been moving further and further in a direction of things that are denser like tech office base. We think that those numbers, in their forward moving trends are going to be considerably lower than the 238 square foot average that is being used. That will create also additional pricing pressures he had only saying this to say we think this one third, because shortterm feasibility is not the best way of trying to capture what is the most appropriate equitable fee and a scenario like this area if we wanted to go down that road, it might make sense to say, if this is already tiered, and if were going to do Something Like saying hey, we are worried about a certain dr. , maybe it is a sector that has additional benefits, and not additional upward pricing pressures. If we wanted to get that creative, maybe we would be willing to go mom and pops small site size that provides workingclass jobs for immigrant and folks without a college education, [bell ringing] may be they had a reduced tear. That might make sense because that will produce additional equitable stabilization instead of additional upward trends. For those reasons we strongly support this legislation exactly at the number it is proposed we hope you will supported as as well, thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners area i am the Community Engagement manager for the glide foundation. We are a member of Market Street or the masses area we are incomplete report of the increase of the linkage fee. We are in an Affordable Housing crisis area that is a very reasonable asked. They will house the most at need, an increase in jobs of the city. Lets put those with needs first. The right thing to do. One thing we have to remember is that the profits for development has increased since 1997. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners area my name is sue joe, and this is connie. Today we represent the tenderloin chinese rights association. We represent 250 members today, to support supervisor haney. Because, you know, the low income family, in the same year, they are still waiting for their housing right now. Even me. I am waiting for the Affordable Housing. I am a Community Organizer. I still cannot afford the market rate price right now. Is my landlord kicks me out, i will be homeless. Today i hope the commissioners support the low income family to build more Affordable Housing. Please work supervisor haney. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, connie ford. We all wear different hats. Today am representing jobs for justice area for those of you who may not know, it is a coalition of union, and Community Groups fighting for all of us to have the best city possible. Im not going to go into all of the details. I am not a city planner, any of that. I just know, like you know, that we need our housing. I just know that most working people, in the city, cannot afford to stay here unless they were lucky like me, bought our houses or our coop shares back in the 70s. I know our children cannot be here, or our grandchildren cannot be here. What does that mean . It means we need more money in order to build more Affordable Housing. We all are supporting prop eight. That would give Property Owners to pay their fair share to build the housing. We are all going to support supervisor haney linkage fee, which means the developers will have to pay some more. Ive heard through the grapevine, over the years, right now, developers are saying it is not feasible, unless we make 22 profit. Well, that is a very nice percentage, and we would all like to make them something. None of us ever see that kind of money. Lets dig a little deeper. The profits are being made here by the developers who want everything to be built union, absolutely Affordable Housing or not. We wanted to be built union. We want the fees so that we can support more working families to live in our city. In queue. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners area pedal peter cohen. I am really glad to be following someone from the labor committee. Youve heard a lot today, and i want to frame this as that this is the amount tremendous jobs Housing Affordability that we have. There has been a lot of work including work that our organization is done, how do we get to a job housing fit . How do we have our workers afford housing that is reduced. It is indisputable. The study reinforces everything everyone is saying. We all want solutions. Jobs housing linkage fee is one tool in the toolbox area i want to emphasize, it is a labor issue. Its not just a fee issue. This is about how we take care of our workers in our city. Ive heard that from several people today who want to emphasize it. The fellow that was up here, the union driver from south orchid. He hit the nail on the head. These are the folks that are working every day. How do they actually have stable housing they can afford . I want to emphasize that to you. We are talking about housing our workers did the fee level is a little mechanism that we are going to negotiate. The argument that we need to house our workers should not be lost on anyone. A couple parts of this policy i want to emphasize that i think are good and we should be supporting that is new, besides the 97 fee update. Now we are going to have 30 of this fee dedicated to Supportive Housing area that is great. Now all of the jobs housing linkage fee goes into a big pot and we move it around. We know one of our biggest crises is housing for formerly homeless. It would have 30 of this dedicated for Supportive Housing. We will also have an of this fee dedicated for housing preservation. We are seeing more and more of our existing housing at risk and taken off the market through regulative practices to people people evicted. Now you have a portion of the honey dedicated to that. Its good smart policy on how to use the money, as well as getting more of it. And then lastly is the opportunity for land dedication. More and more are realizing we have cash but we also need land. It gives the opportunity to use this fee money to secure sites for Affordable Housing that might be otherwise much too expensive for the city to buy. Overall it is good policy as well as the fee. We encourage you to support the legislation. Let the board of supervisors on the Mayors Office sort out the fee level. Overall it is a good piece of policy. Please come out of this today recommending support. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im just here to support the legislation on behalf of supervisor peskin. One of six cosponsors of this bringing it to an astounding seven supervisors who support this legislation. Thinking supervisor haney for really taking this on. For us, goes back to the conversation around the Transportation Sustainability fee. If you recall, it wasnt that ago, this body unanimously said or did a hike in that fee. It was really the same principle. Downtown development has a direct nexus on transportation impacts and that is our 22 billiondollar gap in funding for transportation. This body knows more than anybody, the need for dedicated funding for housing. How that gap was probably much wider than 22 billion. The next a analysis that produces the 196dollar figure, is testament to the need for transformative change here. We support this modest fee. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John kepler here on behalf of the central soma association which are all but one of the key Site Developers set have formed with the city to develop the central soma litigation against the east central soma e. I. R. As well as Office Developers outside of central soma. I want to focus a moment for the nexus study. That needs to be the basis of so much of this conversation. This truly is a legal document, not a policy document. The requirement of the nexus study is based on a mitigation fee act, several decades old, state law that essentially says to pass muster in court, if youre in front of a judge you cannot have a fee more than, meeting all the standards, one of which should strike some of us is that all of the new job created by the new office are all going to be housed in the seven by seven city of San Francisco. One we know is not true. We know people are living elsewhere and commuting to the city. Two, it is inconsistent with the Regional Housing and transportation approach that everybody has been working towards, at least for the last decade, but even longer. In a sense that we are in a down environment next to the highest density transit, probably in the country. One of the highest this is where we want to put the job. There are other cities, as well as us, San Francisco has done a great job of building housing. We are doing it in other cities as well. That is what we want. We do not want to build office in tracy. We want this regional system to work. I just want to point that out. You dont want policy based on that document. So much of the conversation is wrapped around that. A couple of other points. A lot of this is revolving around central soma. The rezoning was amazing, it is called Public Benefits rezoning. At the beginning of this process we said we are going to increase the value of this land and were going to extract two thirds of that increase value for the city. I dont know if it has been done elsewhere before. It was great. Its been a very fine, delicate balance with staff over the years, both the Mayors Office to find that balance. We are at a point where we expect 2 billion to come out of this plan. Providing Major Community benefit, based on that calculation. The last thing i will say, outside of central soma, there are a number of office objects, large and small. Plenty of projects over 25,000. Theyre in the process they might be converting an existing building. These are where a lot of non Tech Companies go. A 40dollar increase is more than doubling what they are expecting to pay. Just a consideration to potentially consider a grandfathering option for certain categories. Just something to put you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comments on this item . Okay. Great job, supervisor haney. As far as im concerned. Again, literally just disappearing below market rate, middle income, low income, we are all disappearing literally i havent one thing that, as far as addressing the middleclass issue. This is the first time ive seen something. Enke. Thank you, supervisor. I last jobsite that i worked on was general cost will. They were tracking local residents. I proudly filled out the form, made a copy of my drivers license and filled out my address it is stuff like that i want to see more of. We dont have too many jobs and this is in the city. We have the wrong people working in those office things. The people that live here should be working on those office things, not having to drive far away. Not having to cross the bridge and go through a tunnel to go to work. If we already live here we should be working here. Supervisor haney is addressing these issues, and hes tackling the largest most developed district in the city as well, too. Dont overlook that, as well. Just to expand on things even more so. I am proud of the fact that we work with city build, and directly take residents from the city, and put it through an Apprenticeship Program and direct them into our actual Apprenticeship Program i give them a career for life area we could, and might want to think about doing that in the office sector. Why is it just construction job . Why cant we put more resident to work, and train them to have careers, in these office of the area again, i dont want to stop Building Office things and say we have too many job and we could reconfigure who is getting those jobs. That is my 2 cents. Thank you. Commissioner moore . Thank you, supervisor haney. Im in full support of what you are doing. Thank you also for bringing out all of those people who told us the real story of what is behind it. We are shoveling paper, it comes alive and it becomes real when you hear the thoughtful comment and the Life Experience which was brought in front of this mission. To all of those people who have testified on behalf of your legislation. What is interesting to me, over the last 1015 years this commission had the publics many times public speak many times that we should be looking at the transit thing, but people are sitting here and nothing was happening. Nobody was picking up the ball. When you take the numbers apart, looking at the high end at the nexus of 1997 at 38, and looking at the range of today, there is a 31dollar delta between then and now. And he that amount over 20 years , it is 1. 15 per year. That is nothing. That is as worthless as almost zero. However, we are not talking about the use and value of money , of what we bought for that same amount 20 years ago. I dont think it is reflected in the trees. When i met is, what i am t you is, would you be able to put into this legislation the mandatory increase, or examination of the jobs housing linkage fee, as you are bringing this forward . Is that possible . It would become a permanent built in update, every five years, or whatever the right number of years is. It is a part of what we have now. It is a part of it. Do you need a study for that eat time or is time . In addition to making sure the fee is indexed every year, like other impact fees we had considered building in a mandatory resetting of the base fee periodically. In conversations with some of the oewd and planning staff we were discussing this option. It sounds like that will be the practice moving forward, we did not put it in the legislation before you. We would be open to adding that to make sure it is re looked that periodically so we are not waiting another 22 years before h