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 273 dwelling units include 14 Single Family homes and 19 multi Family Residential buildings with buildings from three to seven stories or 36 to 80 feet in height. 416 vehicle Parking Spaces and over 450 class one and class two bicycle spaces would be provided. The draft e. I. R. Finding that the project would result . No significant or unavoidable impacts. Impacts related to the following topics could be reduced to less thansitionnificant with mitigation measures. Historic resources archeological, Tribal Cultural, nesting birds and construction noise and vibration, all other impacts were found to be less than significant. The draft e. I. R. Identified three project alternatives. No project alternative is required and assumes nonacute medical uses with minimal alteration to existing buildings. The reduced construction alternative would reduce construction related impacts associated with grading such as archeological, Tribal Cultural and construction noise impacts. The rehabilitation reuse alternative would reuse impacts related to construction noise and nesting birds for less than significant with mitigation to less than significant. Since the project would not result in unavoidable impact they would not reduce the impacts to less than significa significant. Sorry that is the slide that shows the alternatives. Today the Planning Department is seeking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contain understand the draft e. I. R. For members of the public who wish to speak please state your name and speak slowly and clearlily