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 we have this assess area to on in here now. It is something that we can contemplate moving forward with your feedback. Thank you so much for explaining that. The percentage of the allocation if he is extremely sensitive. I am very, very touched by the fact how mr. Cohen took up the issue of labor and fee, and all of it together i think is an extremely profound piece of legislation. I am in full support of it. I had a couple of questions for staff. Mr. Sanchez the model for the labor requirement, part of its baseline assumptions was based on the census. How accurate is the census . Can you repeat the question . The analysis and model that establishes the affordable unit to requirement, for different uses, or professions if you will , has as part of its baseline assumption data from the census. The question is, how accurate is the data from the census . Joshua with planning staff. You are referring to the income breakdown that are underlying the nexus analysis . I believe they use a variety of sources including the census. There is a census product, im going to get the name wrong, it provides a personal level data where you can match incomes. It is a very disintegrated geographical level. It provides a breakdown in terms of their incomes, and their job sector and job classes. I believe they are using other economic sources to enrich the data source. I think it is as good as exists. If participation, in the census is limited, as some suspect, that potentially would change the baseline assumptions, wouldnt it . To the extent that it would change the overall worker composition of various industries and their incomes then theoretically yes. We are limited to the data that is publicly available. Last question, i was a little bit surprised at the numbers from pdr. Regarding that use, the fact that it is now ingrained into multiple districts, and zoning areas. I was a little surprised that its requirement was less then some of the other uses. Jobs housing linkage fee requirements is zero. That is a policy decision that the board and commission have made over the years, it is a policy matter. Am talking about it is affordable unit requirement. So, there is different factors to get as a percentage of the workforce and pdr uses it as a High Percentage of workers who make below market rate below median average. There is a worker Density Factor that gets layered into here. Every thousand square feet of space there is fewer workers. So, that balances out. Those factors arrive at these ratios. The other uses you will notice that the retail rate is actually the highest. It is always the highest because it is a percentage of workers in retail, most of them make lower wages. On a square foot basis, actually generates the highest demand for affordable units. Hotel is also pretty high, as well. Commissioner richards . So, this whole issue of feasibility, as far as looking at sales of buildings, commercial buildings, i was quite surprised. A building i used to work in 123 mission just sold a couple of months ago for 400 million and it was acquired a year prior for 290 million. For anybody to say we do not have a Healthy Office or get, things are flipping for 30 more than they are, over a year, needs to go back to math school. 110 sutter sold for 270 million, it is a hundred year old building. First six weeks of 2019 we have sales in San Francisco at 3. 4 billion on the market, just in those first six weeks. No other buildings coming up for sale, like the one i just mentioned. 2018 was 2. 53 billion in sales, 2017 was 3. 48 billion, clearly we have a Healthy Office work it we look at these numbers. A couple of other things. Commercial real estate. I dont know if you own a home, or you rent, bringing renters taxa back, or mortgage Tax Deductions, property Tax Deductions a limited with our income Tax Deduction up to 10,000. The comp tax cut was a real tax cut. It cut taxes on businesses sometimes up to half. Im just going to go over how much benefit, i dont think this came out in the nexus study. Maybe there is a line in there if you want to pointed out, that i am wrong, prop 13 roll exemptions has been around since prop 13 past in 1977. Commercial landlords are getting away with murder when they transfer under 50 of their buildings. They are not paying transfer tax. They are not being reassessed. Business commercial Real Estate Interest and taxes are fully deductible, as business expenses. They have this thing called depreciation which you and i do not have that goes over the life of the building. The building keeps getting depreciated and they subtract that from their income. That is a great benefit. Accumulated Capital Appreciation gets wiped out at the death of the person who holds commercial property. He passes it on to his heirs because it is a stepped up basis beyond death. That is enormous. I mean, there are people with hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial real estate that are not paying taxes when they die. They have an estate Tax Exemption of 22 million for a married couple, 11 million for single. They have a partnership transfer exemption. I have an llc. It owns the building, so i dont sell my portion of the building to have to pay tax on it. There are all of these different ways that commercial property gets so much benefit. I dont think we realize. I think this is one of the last things left we have to find Affordable Housing four. Looking at sb330 and it imitations on anybodys ability to raise any types of fees to recoup any of these impacts, because it makes developments less desirable or less feasible. This is about all we have left. My one question is, we are finding this out 36 , and haney if you can answer this question, you said that brings about 2,000 and change, the number of units. The impact on the Square Footage of the office that we were having, would be lets say 4,000 more, just to round up. Where is that unfunded housing coming from . The demand is going to be there. The most telling thing, supervisor, was page 19 in the nexus study. Local analysis of Housing Conditions found the new housing affordable to lower income households was not being added as the supply and fish sufficient quality. Anything left of 193, we are digging ourselves further in the hole. Where do we get the money to fill in the hole . I think that is a very good point. That is why you heard from many of the speakers who came up here today. This may not be enough. At the very least it should be viewed at a very common sense, reasonable fee increase. You know, staff did mention this, as well as one of the other speakers that this study does assume that every single worker is going to live in San Francisco. About a third do not. In that sense, the other thing to also remember and the point was made, we have not been building adequately for decades now. There is also the question of the fact that we are starting from way behind. We are way down in the hole. We are way down in the whole. The housing that is being built, through this fee is in many ways making up for our failures in the past, as well. We have Affordable Housing bond. Even with this fee, at this level, we are still way behind. This is, you know, a modest increase. If you are looking at what the need is. We need, you know, this cannot be the whole pot. If we pass this, and the Affordable Housing bond we still have so far to go, even based on our own studies. I do support the yearly increase on this index. Thank you. One last point, we have places in in this state that have extra housing, and higher unemployment. I take exception. I bet you if you got out and asked voters, in california, why dont we put jobs where theres more housing and higher employment, they would probably support that idea. Rather than trying to jam it had we cant really even absorb it. We have this thing called highspeed rails that runs to nowhere. There is a new region we should create with two big cities where we can start from the ground up and we can be as dense as we can. 3. 5 million homes that keeps been in in the mckinsey study, that everybody has adopted as fake that is overestimating the need by two times. You can fit all of those homes, the density of sb50 in 140 square miles. Think about that. Thank you commissioner. [please stand by] it is kept up with inflation. It is more than inflation. What is the method they use . Does anybody know . I dont know. Okay. Would it be different . I am asking what the difference is in what we currently have and Going Forward. Maybe court they can explain courtney can explain. I will do my best. It is a little unclear to find out how it has been indexed historically. That is where we want to index it with the aicce. My understanding is that in the past couple of years they have created a new methodology. It is tough to find out what that is, right now the inclusionnary and jobs housing fees are indexed differently than the other impact fees. Are we then saying that it hasnt been as transparent and we want to migrate it to someplace to understand it and make sure it keeps up. Is that what we are saying . That is our intent. What about the Feasibility Study. I understand the nexus study and the need is clearly there. It is really telling that nobody in two hours of Public Comment came out to speak against it from the development community. I heard mr. Kevin raise questions but not speak against it. That makes me question a little bit the Feasibility Analysis that i saw because it seems to me that if it was going to break the bank, people would be against it. I am not trusting numbers. I dont understand the method. I am a math person. I like to understand what i am seeing. Can you talk to me about the feasibility side of it . I would echo your sentiments on that. I think what has been frustrating for us with the Feasibility Study is that the number that is recommended is well with in the limits of what we can do with the 1997 nexus study, and if we had been indexing the fee with a consistent method year over year we could be charging 38 per square foot right now. That seems to be not recognizing todays realities of an affordability gap that is more than i think 500 times what it was in 1997. They are much lower, there are more workers per square foot of office and the cost of construction has gone up as well as inflation. Again, we our position is the recommendation of 38 is really inadequate. It was also mentioned during comment the Feasibility Study recognizes or seems to assume that under current fees Office Development is infeasible, and yet we see a lot of Office Growth happening. When we looked at our number and set it at 69. 60, we know they are not prescriptive, they are recommendations. We wanted to end up somewhere relatively in the middle and all we really had to go was looking at other impact fees. Looking at a third of the nexus amount. I will say with the exception of the inclusionnary fees at 67 of what nexus said and the inclusionnary amounts exceeded what was laid out in the Feasibility Study. Commissioner richards further comment. Commissioner richards i move to approve the legislation. I was not done. I wanted the make a few additional comments to make sure we cover the basis. We have heard some feedback about potentially modifying the fee allocation to make sure we are being inclusive of other types of housing that are severely underfunded. As we move forward we have had a request on changing the rules around land dedication. Right now, the land dedication can only happen within a constrained geographic region. We have been approached about changing pipeline provisions and treating projects in the pipeline. Those are what we are looking at amending as we move forward. Thank you. I want to thank supervisor haney for bringing this into courtney for all of the work that you have put into it and the members of the community for taking the time to be here and, you know, help us through this process. I will reiterate that i am not sure about this math either in the Feasibility Analysis or anything else, but i want to empower you to keep negotiating the best deal that we can get because i trust that you will. I will not support this staff recommendation of 10 fee. I think it is too low. I am not sure that the 69. 60 is the right fee. I dont know if it is too high or too low. I dont understand the method i want to support you Going Forward and raising the jobs housing linkage ne, i am not ready to support a number today. I think that we still need to discuss it. As i told you, i am particularly interested in central soma and what it does to central o soma. I would like to see those numbers and empower you to get us the best deal overall. If anybody makes a motion i hope you take those comments into consideration. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore could we close by the approval with modifications. What i heard nobody is supporting that modification so what we are trying to say is that we are supporting where you are, including forward going negotiations in improving fees and allocations. Would you help us with that . I appreciate that. We have spoken about this. There are ongoing negotiations around it so i think i hear what you are saying and i will take that as we move forward we will definitely continue to work with the community and this has to go to land use and colleagues and such, i would appreciate your support in the legislation, but i understand the questions that you are raising around the number. Then couldnt we just send it forward with affirmative support, not only for what it says by supervisor haney also that we are supporting ongoing negotiations, refinements and focusing on further ex emfiction of what is issues are. We dont have to vote on anything. We can forward with a strong recommendation of support. We should vote on it. It is an action item. Is somebody going to second . Commissioner richards. It is an action item. You need to act on it. I move to vote yes on the legislation as proposed by the supervisor with no modification. If you need to change things or even encourage different allocations up to you. Lets keep it clean. I second. Thank you. Nothing further, commissioners there is a motion and second to approve the proposed legislation as proposed. On that motion. roll call . So moved commissioners that passes unanimously 50. Thank you so much. Thank you. That places us item 11 for 2017003559env, 37 0 california street for the Environmental Impact report. Written comments will be accep accepted. I will remind members of the public todays hearing is to accept testimony on the adequacy and accuracy of the report, not on the project itself. Good afternoon, president melgar and members of the commission. I am Environmental Planning staff. Could we have the overhead presentation . Thank you. The item before you is the review and comment on the 3700 california Street Project draft Environmental Impact report. The purpose of todays hearing is to take Public Comments on the draft e. I. R. Pursuant to Environmental Quality act and the local procedures for implementing. No approval action on this document is requested at this time. The public review project began on june 13th and will continue until september 24th. This public hearing was rescheduled from earlier day and Comment Period was extended because of error in distribution of the notice of the draft e. I. R. I will discuss it before opening up to Public Comment. The 4. 9acre project is the former California Pacific Medical Center comprising the full block bounded by california, cherry and maple and sacramento streets and portions of the blocks to the east and west. The project would demolish five of the six existing buildings on the site, renovate a portion of the hospital building, retain and renovate an existing nine unit residential building and construct 31 new residential buildings. The proposed 27we