Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

In citywide fees, 77 in central soma fees and in our case and many of our peers have similar fees, 79 of project fees and concessions. Thats over 200 of concessions in the project. If you look at the numbers that mr. Eagan just presented if we are building 430,000 square feet a year and lose 120, the job housing linkage fee would be the same but you would lose 200 per square foot or 24 million per year of public benefits. We urge continuance and continued dialogue on this one. Thank you mr. Shannon. 2700 block of california is it about scott street . I would pose to you those people are actually going to tech jobs on the peninsula and had the peninsula built housing, they would be living next to their jobs right now. The floor is yours. Thank you supervisor. Mike from realty corporation. I completely agree that none of you who support this measure are trying to eliminate jobs in San Francisco. That was a good clarification. The goal is to generate revenue for the city of San Francisco. And to build on what the previous speaker said, if the goal is to increase revenue to the city of San Francisco the 140,000 square feet that the controllers report said would not be built every year is generating far more in other revenue than just the increase that you are proposing for the jobs housing linkage fee. Just in terms of property taxes alone that 140,000 square feet would generate 2 million a year in property taxes. Thats every year. The jobs housing linkage fee is a onetime fee. So i think we need to be careful that we are not working against the interests that i think we all agree we are trying to solve to generate money for Affordable Housing. Theres bond measures on the ballot this year. And we should all be supporting those to try to generate more money for Affordable Housing. This measure i fear would have the reverse effect. And so i think we need more time to consider it to come up with an appropriate increase that will not have the effect of reducing the amount of development or pushing the development to other places which will generate fees for the other places. And with all due respect supervisor, i think that your exact point you just made about people in mr. Shannons neighborhood taking a bus to a peninsula, that will still happen if the Office Development gets built on the peninsula. We will still feel the housing impacts if that Office Development is built on the peninsula but we wont get any of the fees. Thank you. I was suggesting they put housing on the peninsula but thank you. Agreed. Next speaker please. Hi. Im here to request we continue this item. I know it was brought up in may. But it wasnt until last month that it was the number of 69 was brought to attention and there are a couple of things that are concerning. For example the Feasibility Study showing the highest amount recommended would be 38. 57. And the current amount would be more than double that. If the policy objective is to Leverage Office element for Revenue Sources for the production of Affordable Housing this rate would counter to that. Some of the numbers i saw in the presentation, for example in 2015 and 2016, the revenue was 30 million. And thats when i remember the housing crisis was pretty intense. And right now with this number, we are maybe going to get 9 million in additional revenue, which is a lot less than 30 million in the current rate that we have. So that would deliver 12 more Affordable Housing units. I think again to the point of mixed use housing and Office Development, we are compromising housing. There are a lot of times when housing projects lean on the commercial aspect to make it feasible. So the layering of these things is going to impact those most vulnerable our larger community. I really think we are not addressing the root of the problem. We need to come up with more creative solutions. I totally agree we need to focus on the lower Income Housing but this isnt the way to do it. So again i request that we postpone this item. Good afternoon again speakers. Cory smith on behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. This is a piece of legislation where ultimately at the end of the day we want whatever results in the most money for subsidized Affordable Housing and we want to drive that number as high as possible with being economically feasible. I know theres conversation about what is economically feasible. I know the gentleman spoke about the loss of revenue for the city if this passes through as it currently comes through. But the study that was done, and it was fantastic, and thank you supervisor mar for requesting it. Just trying to understand as a whole how much housing and what types of jobs we are creating in the city. And we all agree its a regional conversation, i want to pin a pin in that for a moment. But to expect things to change without a wholesale just refreshed solution about how we go about our affordability and displacement crisis in the city without addressing the big picture of it we dont think we are going to get very far. A few years ago put out a study that showed if we want San Franciscos rent to increase at the same rate of inflation we need to be building 5,000 new homes every year. We need to be doing it all over the city. We need to be doing it at all income levels. If we take those steps we are going to get much bigger bang for our buck. And it will be hard and we will make sure our services are adequate. We will invest in schools as new kids come in. But as mentioned by the previous speaker, we are talking maybe a dozen affordable units which are incredibly important to the people that are going to live in them. One at a time they do count but in order to get the quantity that we need in order to fix this thing, this will not be a panacea, we do need Big Solutions and we need bold solutions. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you supervisors. The San Francisco chamber of commerce representing over 1,000 businesses in San Francisco large and small. We want to first start and thank supervisor haney for initiating this long overdue reevaluation of the jobs housing linkage fee. We agree that more Affordable Housing is necessary to sustain our economy. We encourage a few continuation that allow for more Stakeholder Input and discussion to finetune this legislation. We appreciate the supervisors willingness to work with different stakeholders, advocates businesses. We think the nuanced approach is correct in this legislation. Incrementally increasing the fee over a period of time as the supervisors amendments have moved in that direction is a smart move and we would encourage expanding that length of time and lowering the fee from the start point and getting to its end point. We also encourage a different feature for small Cap Development for developments that are designed for small and medium sized businesses. The supervisors probably recognize the Feasibility Study that the study said there was a feasibility for small Cap Developments that is possible. But thats only feasible because that fee gets passed onto those tenants. So you have a small Cap Development that has a higher fee that does mean higher rent for those companies and those companies will get pushed out of San Francisco when they can no longer afford the office space. Finally we think it is prudent to have regular Economic Analysis and regular board adjustments much like we do with zoning legislation. By continuing the legislation we allow for more time for discussion. Adding the Business Community would like to be a positive supporter of collaborative partner on this legislation and given a few more weeks of time for discussion allows us to do that. Thank you for your time. Next speaker. Hi. I work at partners who make the food for hospitals member of local 2. A couple months ago i had to take the decision to move to watsonville. And i travel daily between five and six hours. I had to admit just last week i was driving about driving to work and just ten minutes before coming to work i had to pull over and sleep for 40 minutes. When i woke up, it was i was late for work 15 minutes. So those kinds of things im far away from my family. I dont get to see my daughter. And things like this, its hard for people. I used to live five minutes away from work. Ive been working at this company for 13 years. And now i i dont get to live around here. I contribute to this city. So i should be able to live here too. So please increase the fee and have enough housing for workers like me. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening my name is aaron with boston properties. Supervisor haney, i wanted to thank you for considering a reductions in the fee for projects that have been in the development pipeline. Weve got a project in soma that has been on file since 2005 and we are finally able to move forward. The plan has been approved and the lawsuits are cleared. With that said, we are open to a fee increase and weve been having productive conversations both within the Development Community and with your office. And we ask this item be continued for another week or two so we can continue that dialogue. And ill come up with a solution that we think would work for everybody. Thank you. Next speaker. Supervisors. Mercy housing. Supervisor haney, i wanted to compliment you for introducing the legislation. Somebody may know i used to work for the city and we were con tellcontemplating the fee back then. I think i was 12 years old when that was last considered. You are struggling to figure out the exact point. I just want to say as somebody who develops Affordable Housing on the peninsula one of the big challenges down there and everywhere else in the region is people use other communitys lack of willingness to increase their linkage as an excuse to not raise that i know own so its important that every community continue to push this issue forward because at the end of the day lots of communities are refusing to increase the fee under the excuse their neighbors dont have it and it will be a disadvantage for them. So i recommend you continue moving forward. I dont have an opinion on the continuance. Im sure the amendments are excellent. And i hope you swiftly move forward with this legislation. Thank you. Next speaker. Disability action. I am in support completely of the job linkage jobs housing linkage fee. I am so glad that we heard two reports today giving us a different picture but a picture. What i know and what i see and hear all the time is that seniors so the retired workforce are unable to remain in their homes because they are being priced out because they are being evicted out. People who in my neighborhood in north beach had worked at the fishermans what were Fisherman Wharf so we are talking about people of all ages. They have been forced out of the city. We need housing which is very clear. We need housing that is truly affordable. And lets be clear when we use the term affordable, what income level we are talking about. And in terms of which workers could actually afford that, quote Affordable Housing. So im so glad that we are doing something about this. It is one step in the right direction and above all having reports. I especially appreciated the definition of loss or trying to define that. We are losing a huge loss of so many of our workers. So many of our seniors. Because there is not truly Affordable Housing here. So we need to do whatever we can. And im very appreciative of this effort. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. Im a member of senior and disability action. And im a longtime voter from district 5. Im here to support supervisor haneys proposal for an increase in the jobs housing linkage fee. This would be for producing Affordable Housing. Please do not delay with the continuation. This is too critical. As a senior ive witnessed for decades the city running a race it can never win. A race to keep protect and provide enough Affordable Housing units, completely overtaken by a tidal wave of new workers, created by commercial development. The tidal wave that has forced our extremely low to moderate income people much of them seniors and people with disabilities out of the city or homeless into the streets. So a tidal wave of displacement an affordability crisis that has no end unless, unless we enact sensible measures to Balance Office and Affordable Development such as supervisor haneys proposal. I urge all the supervisors to unanimously support this proposal to slow our race to self destruction. This treadmill we cant seem to get off. I especially call on my own district 5 supervisor brown, on october 8, when senior and disability action had its supervisor Candidate Forum supervisor brown said she would support supervisor haneys job linkage increase. I hope that she stands firm in the assurance she gave us, because we are counting on her. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon now evening supervisors. Sorry to keep you here. But peter cohen from Community Housing organizations. And like other speakers have said, thanking primarily the lead sponsor supervisor haney and others who have endorsed this legislation, it is a long time coming. And supervisor peskin, i dont think i go back 19 years but at least 15. And the Housing Organization has been asking and pressing and suggesting we need to increase our commercial linkage fee. That is the primary of job growth in this town. The fact that we havent raised it for 20 years is kind of 22 years . Okay. Good math. Its kind of unconscionable. Finally the nexus report came out to tell us what we all understood is its dramatically underinvesting in the needs of our workforce. And im glad to see a number of our organizations up here. We are in the business of providing services and making sure folks have a roof over their head. And we can talk numbers all day. But the frame of this is, you said it earlier this isnt just numbers these are people. These are households. And cesar from from local 2 told you a story. Theres thousands and thousands and thousands of those stories like cesar said, people who are working their butts off all day long, hidden from the glory of the tech economy but making the city go round and we are not providing the housing they need. Maybe youve read resegregation, the new book, people are moving to find housing to commute to this city. Its not right. So lets raise this fee and get it right. And lets not delay. Weve spent months to get to this point. Please move this forward to the new board and i hope its an 110 vote when it goes there. Thank you mr. Cohen. Next speaker please. Hello. Im from the housing program. Our Organization Provides access to housing by helping people to navigate Affordable Housing. Over the years, we have seen changes in our demographics as well in terms of who is looking for Affordable Housing. For the last fiveyears or in the last five years or five years ago, i would say 90 percent of our clientele were about from 40 percent ami to 80 percent ami. Last year, our demographic has changed from 60 percent where they are extremely low income meaning lower than 30 percent ami and about 40 percent are very low or low income. So that means like 40 to 8 percent. So that means theres a big change already of people who are living or working here in San Francisco. And that means the people are working here in San Francisco are not living here in San Francisco anymore. And theres an increase of homelessness. One thing that i really appreciate, it really gave a perspective of the Bigger Picture about when there is loss of feature Office Developments meaning the ami will also decrease. That is a perfect scenario for all of our clientele. Because every time there is Affordable Housing the ami because every year thats something she didnt mention is every year amis are always increasing. And that means rents are always increasing. So it really gives a picture that what kind of Affordable Housing or what kind of housing is being built or being pushed on by the city itself meaning growth and density is not going to solve the housing crisis. So yes we support the fullon housing linkage fee legislation. Thank you ms. Imperial. Next speaker. My name is susan marsh. I think its generally, its general consensus that the growth of highend jobs here and throughout the region is one of the main things that is generating our housing crisis in San Francisco. I think thats a given. What is the housing crisis . Above all its a crisis of displacement. As we heard the percentage of lowincome people has dropped sharply in this town. Theres been an increase in lowwage jobs. What does that tell us . Theres massive displacement with all the environmental and social and human destructiveness of all this, with all the suffering it entails. One of the reasons for the displacement and the surge in amis and minimum qualifications of Affordable Housing is simply that we are not building enough of it. Also as per the report. The market will never fix this. The market is overbuilding as we have also heard. Market rate housing the city we must build the housing that we need. The way to do that is to fund this. The fee is a good place to start. I urge you to forward it without any further delay. Thank you supervisor haney. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening. Dean preston. And thank you supervisor haney for moving this legislation forward. And thank you supervisor mar for surfacing so much of the factual data that makes it so clear why this is essential. At a time when the displacement crisis is raging in our city when our housing is less affordable than its ever been and when we see new data showing that so clearly that we are overbuilding for those with high wages and completely failing as a city to build for poor folks for working class folks in this city, this is a critical piece of taking a step forward to building the Affordable Housing that we need. I think this hearing and the discussion and many of chair prestons questions peskins questions made it clear the current policy makes the situation worse. Its not just some neutral policy that exists right now. As we are building largescale Office Development and not charging the fees we need to offset the impact, we are making our city less and less affordable. We are taking maybe one step forward and probably three or four steps backwards. And whats so crucial about this legislation is it moves us toward actually addressing the impact of this kind of development. I commend supervisor haney for his work on this. Lets move this forward as quickly as possible. I say to all of those who have been supporting proposition a and its wonderful to see us all coming together, around 600 million for Affordable Housing this is going to bring us what, 500 million over the next decade. So lets all come together over this. Thank you. Next speaker. With the Life Sciences association. We too urge you all to consider continuing this item for further Stakeholder Input and analysis. Thank you. Thank you. And we are in receipt of your organizations letter. Next speaker. Hello supervisors. Im david woo with the filipino Cultural Heritage district. Thank you supervisor haney for the legislation and all the cosponsors and thank you supervisor mar for that report. We are in full support of the legislation to update this fee and bring that fee in line with the realities of 2019. The goal of the cultural district is to preserve the existing community and residents between 2000 and 2010 the filipino population in the south of market decreased by 50 percent. Within filipinos we see a huge demand for Affordable Housing and we see the impact of private commercial development. The south of market is is targeted by the city for up zoning and profitcentered development which creates pressure on existing residents and existing Affordable Housing as the private market looks to maximize profit at the expense of the existing community. The fact that this fee has not been updated since 1997 really speaks to the amount of additional benefit commercial developers especially office have been getting by not paying the correct amount for this impact fee. And again this isnt a new fee its an out of date fee. While we cant get back this loss of funds this legislation is a step in the right direction toward meeting the housing demands that are created by commercial development. We see how private development has severe and lasting negative impacts on the neighborhood by increasing rent increasing displacement and evictions and pricing out nonprofits and Small Businesses with the passage of the central plan we are about to experience a large influx of Office Developments and with it a new tidal wave of displacement. The massive amount of profit being created by these private developments must be redistributed through fees like this. I strongly urge the other supervisors that have not yet signed onto this legislation, to sign on, support families and workers. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead maam. Good evening supervisors. First of all, i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity and privilege to talk in front of you. I am a resident of the tenderloin community. I am a volunteer there for five years already. And in my observation i experience also that its really a great problem of this Affordable Housing. And with my daughter, we are evicting for this. After listening to the different people, i appreciate that first of all i am in favor of this legislation. This housing our workers legislation is really very important to all of us, especially in my community. Thank you, my dear member haney, supervisor, thank you and your companions too for this i strongly support this legislation. And im hoping and praying always that there should be an implementation for this. Thank you. And congratulations to all of us. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please. Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Good evening supervisors. My name is christopher peterson. I strongly support finding new sources of revenue to fund Affordable Housing. Sounds like a substantial increase and this fee is appropriate. Im agnostic about what the exact amount should be. But i do think theres one factor that i havent heard discussed in this process. That its important for this and should be just a routine component of the analysis of other similar significant measures, which is Climate Change. This proposed fee increase potentially could play a beneficial role in the citys response for example by increasing supply of Affordable Housing in the city. It could potentially have negative consequences if its driving Office Developments to more automobileoriented areas areas that have more extreme climates that have Greater Energy demands. So, it can play out in different ways. And i think for this proposed ordinance and other similar kinds of actions the city really should be explicitly engaging in analysis of the complicated ways in which these kinds of measures can affect the citys Climate Change response. Thank you. Thank you sir. Next speaker please. Thank you supervisors. John calvin here. We represent a number of Office Project sponsors throughout the city. Just wanted to make a couple points. The committee got into this earlier the fact that the feasibility document really is a legal document, not a policy document. Again the supervisors, you are aware of this already. You mean the nexus document is the legal document the feasibility document is not. Thank you supervisor peskin. I appreciate that. In that it makes an assumption that all of the workers that are going to fill these new jobs in Office Development live in the of San Francisco. Now, this is based on a 1987 law, the mitigation fee act, as well as Court Decisions since then. It is a legal limit as to what a city is legally allowed to increase. Because of course it wouldnt make any sense to mitigate beyond what the actual impact within the citys borders are. So it checks the legal box but it doesnt speak to the issue of feasibility. Its not a practical reality. We know all these people are not going to be living in San Francisco. And its not something we want to achieve. This is a regional economy. This is a regional you are focused on regional transit. We dont want everyone working and living necessarily in the same city. And because we are sitting on the highest density transit probably in the country, it makes sense that we are depending on the entire region. And because of a lot thats going on with the state, we have more tools to make that more equitable from city to city. So really the key is here and supervisor haney to your credit, the reason we are talking about a 40 fee and not 200 fee is feasibility is the key. And there are trade offs in terms of increasing this fee and resulting in any feasibility, which is that there is an Office Crisis right now too. We have nonprofits that cant find space in the city Small Businesses professional services moving out of the city so there are consequences both ways. And thats why we appreciate the amendments. We appreciate some additional time to consider this to make sure we get the numbers right. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is maya and i work at the counsel of Community Housing organizations. I shared this story earlier at the rally before the hearings. I wanted to share it again. So before i started working at the the counsel i was offered a job after college at a Public Relations firm on Market Street downtown. It was a good first job. But i couldnt find an affordable place to live. I was so desperate that i ended up moving into a place in chinatown where i was paying more than half of my income per month in rent. I lived with seven other people in a 10 by 10 closet with no windows but a shaft. And i was eating unhealthy because i was buying microwaved food to save money. And i was really barely hanging on. The reason i stayed is because i didnt want to leave the city. And i really wanted to make a place for myself here. And i know i was fortunate and the reality is that so many people cant even afford any place to live. But its important to recognize that this Affordable Housing shortage affects people of all walks of life, even everyday workers in the downtown like i was, and so many others. And people are choosing to live in unhealthy situations because thats all they can find. So i choose San Francisco. And i want others to get the chance to choose San Francisco too and find work here and be part of this Community Without having to sacrifice their health or their stability because of a lack of Affordable Housing. So please support supervisor haneys legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, supervisors. With the counsel of Community Housing organizations. The report that is part of this discussion that supervisor mar had done had a list of new jobs created in San Francisco between 2010 and 2017. I want you to picture some of those workers. Ill name a few. Software developers. You picture software developer. How about a personal and Domestic Worker . How about a Food Service Worker . Since 2010, the city brought in 16,000 new or 13,000 new Software Developers, 26,000 new personal and Domestic Workers. 7,000 new federal Service Workers Food Service Workers. The previous speaker said workers dont have to all live in the city. And the previous speaker said we dont want all workers to live in the city. But the report showed that we, the economy of San Francisco want Software Developers to live in the city, because they can afford it. And we, the economy of San Francisco does not want Domestic Workers to live in the city and does not want Food Service Workers to live in the city and doesnt want our uber and lyft drivers to live in the city and doesnt want our social Service Workers to live in the city and doesnt want our repair and maintenance workers to live in the city, doesnt want our construction workers to live in the city where they work. That is why we need this legislation. That is why we need this fee. And thats why we need to have it passed as quickly as possible so we can start housing our workers. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak to item 6 and or 7 . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. I want to thank all the individuals who came out for Public Comment and thank the budget analyst and supervisor mar for the earlier presentation as well as supervisor haney. And before i turn it over to supervisor haney, i would like to make a few highlevel observations. One of them is that this reminds me a little bit of the inclusionary housing conversation that we had a few years ago. So at the dawn of the 20th century, then supervisor leto created the first inclusionary housing law at 10 percent for onsite below market rate units on the condo side and the apartment side at 10 percent. And that was meant to be a dynamic law. And it changed over time as Market Conditions changed. And as i said like a broken record, the city and its leaders, i would like to blame myself because i made many mistakes, but i was not on the board at that time. And the mayor at that time went and the number and charter and gave it a 20 percent haircut which may have been the right thing to do because it was in the middle of the great recession. But it stayed at that rate in the charter and could not be changed by the board of supervisors. And when i first got elected in 2015, we went to the voters and took it out and we now have the dynamic not static inclusionary law that we have today. And supervisor safai and then supervisor breed and supervisor kim and i with expert advice, like the kind of advice that comes from ted eagan whether he had depicted his slides in language we like or not, all came together and did something that allowed new Housing Starts with what we believe is the maximum feasible amount of inclusionary housing. But there was a huge fight around that. And the fight was that between 2012 when that got in the charter and 2016 when we finally changed the law, there were a bunch of developers who got a huge, huge gift. And the same thing is true here. Now, not all those developers are still in town. But the reality is between 1997, at the height of the office boom through today and by the way, i have sat down with a bunch of developers Office Developers, and none of them are screaming bloody murder at the rates that supervisor haney has proposed. They may scream bloody murder if our Economic Cycle cycles down, and it will inevitably cycle down. But none of them are screaming bloody murder about it. And a lot of them got away with murder. They made huge profits huge profits, because we should have actually indexed that fee in 1997 and done subsequent nexus studies along the way. And we would have a lot more Affordable Housing to show for it in the same way that an inclusionary, we missed the boat on thousands of units of more Affordable Housing. And so as i wrestle with this, because i actually am worried about not raising it to a point where new office starts become infeasible. So for the sweet spot i think its very important and giving the market some predictability and stability is also important. Because when the market can plan for it, which is exactly what we did in inclusionary. In inclusionary we actually said, hey everybody, we are not going to mess with this every year. We are going to actually give you something that you and the market as market rate Housing Developers are going to be able to predict over time. And by the way if theres a huge economic downturn, we can adjust accordingly and appropriately. I think that is the model that is right for all fees where you are trying to mitigate an impact and where people have to pay their fair share. But it should be understood that a huge amount of money has been made. I was given my friend carl shannon a long time but let me tell you, tissueman is still in this market because tishman has done well at infinity and other buildings. And theyre going to do well in the market as are the other big five market developers. Oz of today it has been crickets. I defy supervisor safai and supervisor haney and supervisor mar. Im a pretty accessible supervisor. I have heard virtually nothing until today about requests for continuance. And lets be real, this was introduced in may. I dont think many Office Developers with a straight face can say that this is too high. And i do want to say relative to what supervisor haney has introduced in terms of phasing things in and giving that level of stability and predictability that he has met folks halfway. So and let me just say if it turns out that nobody is building new office, we can adjust accordingly. But as mr. Eagan said instead of building 500,000 square feet, you are going to build 350,000 square feet a year. That somehow is not the end of the world for me. So with that ill turn it over to supervisor haney. Supervisor safai. You want to go last, right . Okay. So i want to just add on a little bit to what supervisor peskin has said. And first i want to start by saying i really appreciate supervisor haney bringing this conversation forward and the amendments and focuses that hes made in terms of how this money would be spent, focusing on acquisition of rental housing, focusing on small sites and raising the cap on that. Focusing on Supportive Housing for the first time. These are all really really important things. I dont think theres disagreement at all with anybody in this room or even the full board that the fee should be increased. I think the conversation now is really about, and i appreciate supervisor peskin referencing the inclusionary housing. Because i think it is a great parallel. We had not updated that, supervisor, i think in 15 years. Is that correct . Yeah. So the inclusionary housing. So about 15 years. And there had been conversations and gone to the ballot. And they had made some adjustments on that. But we had not essentially made significant updates to that for about 15 years. And we spent about almost a year, theres some members in the room that worked on that with us. We had multiple conversations. We had the controller and ted eagans group in there and Community Organizations and representatives from lay bore and members of the board. There was a diverse Cross Section of people. And i think it took us almost a year to get that done. And there was a significant amount of continuances and amendments made. And i think in the end we got it right to the point where that number goes up and we have the ability to readjust. I think that what i still feel a little uncomfortable with here is the level of analysis thats done in terms of what actually is feasible. And as supervisor peskin said, a little bit worried about a number that goes up that does not necessarily correlate into new Office Development then and hence does not correlate into new jobs housing and linkage fees that then go into Affordable Housing. So im a little concerned about that. I do appreciate what supervisor haney has done where theres a tiered system. But when i hear from some of the larger groups in the room but also the Planning Department the Planning Department had made a recommendation at just under 39 in terms of where they thought the number should go to. So i still think theres and i think supervisor haney i understand kateed indicated the only group we did hear from in advance was the building trades. There was concerns from organized labor. But youre right in terms of significant outreach, it was not a significant amount done prior to today. But there was a good chorus of people that asked for a small continuance. I also want to say positively those groups have said on the record that they are open to the fee the number going up. And they believe it should go up. And i think thats a positive sign. So im a little bit concerned about the final number. But i am 100 percent in support of raising that number. And im 100 percent in support of raising the number to create more Affordable Housing. Thank you supervisor safai. Before i hand it over to supervisor haney is there anything you want to say . You are sitting there like you want to Say Something. Youve been here all evening. We know that your Commission Recommended this to us unanimously. That has been mentioned repeatedly, which is actually interesting because you have a commission that you are leading that has members who are pointed by different members and different board president s and they support supervisor haneys legislation on i think it was a 6 to 0 vote. But the floor is yours. Sorry for the pained face. Its been a couple hours sitting in wooden chairs. I wanted to clarify the commission did hear this and recommend to vote approval. The departments position is for approval even though staff originally recommended for the 39. So our official position is from. Can you talk about that . We havent gotten that on the record . No, its all in the record. It is right here until the. And staffs recommendation is clear. And the commissions recommendation to this body is clear. But for supervisor safai who may have not read the fine print. He just said it. He said staff recommended 39 but they readjusted their position and now support the commission. I just want to make that clear. But what was the basis for your original 39 . We based it on the Feasibility Study, make sure i get the term right which had that as the number, and thats part of our. This is a perfect segue. Do you have anything else you want to say . I dont want to cut you off. Thank you for putting that on the record, mr. Star. I want to Say Something about the eps report. And i know eps and i respect them, i respect kaiser who did the nexus report. But i have to say is you read these reports and look at the different models, i would say this to Department Heads who come here, and they show us their performance metrics during the budget season. And it turns out that the metric is we are going to answer all of our 911 calls within x seconds, y percent of the time. And they tell you that they perfectly hit it at 90 percent. Not 91 percent, not 93 percent. And you know that the number is made up. Okay . So when eps says the sweet spot, after all this analysis and all these pages of all these graphs and the key operating development of costs and land cost assumptions is 10 as an earlier speaker said, and i say this respectfully, we know its bull shit. Because its not 9. 27, its 10. You know what that is . Thats spit balancing stuff. So i take that with a huge grain of salt. The name of the game is you hire consultants. Developers are doing this for profit. Thats the motive. And theyve got to keep their costs down. And i get that. If you make costs too high, you make development infeasible and you make things for expensive. But i do have to take that with a grain of salt when it says 10. And apparently the Planning Commission took that with a grain of salt when they rejected staffs recommendation which is based on respectfully regurgitating the eps report. And thats what happened as far as the supervisor is concerned. I was around in the year 2001 when everybody in the housing Development Community said that inclusionary was going to be the end of the world as we knew it. I was around when they raised to 12 percent and they said it was going to be the end of the world as we knew it. Apparently it has not been the end of the world as we know it. I was around when victoria wise stood right over here after mayor very towed the funding for transportation vetoed the funding for transportation. When i got on the board it changed the balance between, quote, unquote moderates and progressives. We massed the thing and it became law. And we are seeing no shortage of Office Development in San Francisco. So the question is how much the market will bear. I believe and im willing to test what supervisor haney has before us which he has agreed to judicially phase in. And with that, i will hand it over to supervisor haney. Thank you, cherry peskin. I appreciate all of that. Chair peskin. I appreciate all of that. I appreciate your sponsorship on this. I want to thank everybody who came out and stuck around and who has given comments and helped us draft this. And i do think the amendments we put forward are reasonable and also help us accomplish our goals. I will say that im glad that we discussed the supervisor mars report or the report that supervisor mar commissioned before we had this conversation. Because i think what we saw in that report is what the likely outcome will be if we continue on the path that we are on. And if we dont take a bold proactive action. We have taken a certain approach to this question of our jobs housing balance over the last ten years. And i think its had deeply problematic concerning, i would even call it an existential threat to our city and its quality of life and its wellbeing. At the same time as weve seen some of the lowest unemployment rates that weve ever had in San Francisco, some of the highest rates of growth. We have deep inequality. We have more and more people who are homeless. We have more and more people who are being displaced and having to commute here. And i can tell you that i see it every day on the streets of my district where there is more desperation, theres more displacement. People are struggling in the city. And what we have in front of us here is an important part of the solution. All the folks who came in who are a part of the Good Government type organizations like spur, its concerning to me they didnt comment on the jobs housing report and come forward with us with solutions and partnership but instead just got up there and opposed a real solution to this crisis. We need everybody working together to build more housing especially Affordable Housing. This is a part of this solution. But its not the only step that we have to take. But i think its a critical one because as i said we know what it looks like when we dont act with boldness and urgency and somebody said this was an extreme step. I think if you look at that report and what has happened then with the massive displacement of people who are low income and middleincome in our city, that is extreme. And what we need is a bold and extreme response in order to reverse that trend. So we will continue to have Office Development growth. Theres a lot thats positive about what Office Development can bring to our city. I know there are massive projects that are in the pipeline that are still being planned. Many, many folks want to build office here and will continue to want to build office here. But lets do it in a smart way, a measured way a Sustainable Way and a way that really takes care of all of our workers, particularly those who are at the threat of displacement in our city. So with that, i want to forward this to the full board as amended. First we have to take the amendment. So i want to move the amendment. So amendments have been moved. Can we take that without objection . And then on the motion to send the item as amended to the full board with recommendation, a roll call please. Can i say one thing . Yes you may. We have not started voting. I am committed and a number of folks asked today to continue the conversation and to meet before it comes to the full board and try to work out some of the remaining issues. Im absolutely committed to doing that and planning to do that. As i mentioned ive already made the commitment to have an ongoing analysis and sort of review of this similar to what we had for inclusionary. I want to meet with some of the folks who were concerned about the lab fees and talk about that. And im obviously going to continue to be open to talking to the Mayors Office and all the folks who are impacted by this. So thats my commitment. But i do think its important we move this to the full board. When are you moving it to the full board . Im going to move it to the next board meeting. And hopefully we can resolve the issues by then. If if you cant you can always call for a continuance. If i cant well continue it. I just want to say i supervisor that openness supervisor haney. I think its an extremely important conversation. And the revenue generated by this will be a good bum being step in terms of addressing a significant shortcoming that weve missed for a number of time. Im not ready for this today. Im certainly open to voting for this when it comes to the full board. I am just not ready to move it today. Im not going to support it today but i am open moving forward, absolutely. On the item as amended a roll call please, ms. Major. Haney aye. Safai no. Peskin aye. There are two ayes and one no with safai in descent. Is there any further business. There is none. Seeing none, we are adjourned. Adjourned. Shop dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of San Francisco by supporting local Services Within the neighborhood we help San Francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop dine in the 49 my name is jim woods im the founder of Woods Beer Company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that were reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside were having a lot of ingredient that get theres a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to Treasure Island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity cant be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on Treasure Island like minded Business Owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a nobrainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting Small Business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and cant get that of minor or anywhere else and San Francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant well make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of San Francisco and a vibrant community