Carmichael schools. I urge you all to have this go through. Our process has been working. Our Community Voices have been heard so i urge you to do the right thing and push it forward. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners, i am Heather Phillips on the eastern neighborhood cac. I am part of Soma Community for the last 16 years, and i am just so excited to see the work between the community, Supervisors Office and planning staff to come together to look at what it takes to really direct these funds well to make sure there is Community Voice and appropriate accountability, and i really think the plan in front of you really looks at all of those factors and pushes forward a cac that is going to be representative of the community, going to make sure there is Community Voice in the Infrastructure Improvements in our district. We hope that you will move in forward today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. I am with you nighted player united players. I am in support. I am excited to continue the work of the fund. It was unprecedented the developer fees would stay in the community they were impacting. We are excited to see this work continue. Soma has unfairly borne the brunt of the development and the results doesnt always come back to the neighborhood. We are excited to move forward. We were able to purchase our youth center and so not only what that does for our young people and families is huge but just for us as an organization to help us grow and meet the needs our families have. We are stable. We dont have to worry about displacement and the things in the young peoples lives that are in crisis. The last thing they need are the nonprofits to be in crisis. We are looking for the fees to support the neighborhood as it continues to change. We look forward to it. We urge you to support this. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Connie ford. I served on this cac stabilization since the beginning of time, not quite that long but since 2005. We came together as a community with our different sectors and represented the five best to represent the soma people as we could. I am really proud of this committee. I have serve would on a lot of nonfunctioning committees in my life, and this is inunctionsing committee. We work together, listen to the community. We are from the community and we have done great things for the community. My granddaughter goes to betsy carmichael. I was part of the movement to put a stop sign right there to help us cross the street and all of the children. Those are the tangible things, aside from, you know, being able to serve the culture and move it forward. I am really proud. I am still on that cac and probably will be for a little bit longer. Please help us continue our work. We are glad we have almost spent most of the hill money and we are going to get some other money to continue to move forward to support the community in an area that needs support because of so much displacement. Thank you. Any other Public Comment be on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner koppel. Vice president joel koppel . You had your bases covered. Thank you, supervisor and planning. The voices of the community have spoken to create this cac. Thank you to everybody. I move to approve. Second. Seeing nothing further, commissioners there is a motion to approve these amendments. roll call . I want to clarify the motion also included the staff modifications. Yes. I am sorry with staff modifications. The resolution does include modifications referred to in the presentation. Thank you. Commissioners that places us on item 10. The jobs housing linking fee planning code amendment. 201901197 5 00 p. M. Ca. Good afternoon. I am joined by the Department Staff as well as ted conrad. Before i provide the staff recommendation on this i would like to provide the legislative sponsor supervisor haney with time to present to you. Welcome, supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you, president melgar and commissioners. I thank you all folks here. There are many residents of district 6. This is a very important issues specially for the community i represent. It has been said that it goes without saying that San Francisco is in a housing crisis. We are struggling to meet the growing demand for housing that is affordable to the vast majority of the growing work force. We have failed to meet the goals for very low, low and moderate Income Housing. Over the last decade the city produced 657 net new affordability units per year compared to the goal of over producing 2000 new units annually. What i hear is similar to what you hear on a regular basis. The demand for Affordable Housing is huge. Teachers around workers are moving further out of the city. They cant afford to live here. People are dying on streets. We cannot house them. Families in one or two bedrooms waiting for years. Seniors at risk of becoming homeless. The demand is through the roof. For are renew Office Development a third of the new employees are making under 100,000 a year. For each tech sector job created, five jobs are created. Our job base has grown 32 , much faster than the rate of Housing Production of 17 . The city has the highest jobs to housing airio in the bay area. Instead of onetoone balance for every new job we build half a unit of housing. This is a dangerous trend that is completely thrown off the jobs housing balance. We cannot continue in this direction because the results are clear. We have been ignoring this jobs housing inbalance. If we are not proactive this will continue to grow. As recent stories made clear we have one of the strongest Office Growth markets in the region. We have less than 5 office vacancy. Only manhattan has Higher Office rents than San Francisco. The city has agreed to the plans that are critical to housing and transportation. We must work toward lower city wide job housing ratio. I am here today to ask your help in meeting that goal and fix this desscrip see between jobs and housing impacting so many in the city. This legislation has the support of supervisors yee, fewer, ronen, peskin and maras well as workers such as jobs of justice and the most impacted communities. The city has long recognized the important nexus between jobs and housing. There is an undeniable relationship between new employees and Affordable Housing demand. During the San Francisco first phase of High Rise Office expansion from 1970 to 1990, the city recognized the need to fees to offset the impact to the development. In the mid90s there was a child care impact fee and job housing fee. These are an important source of funding to mitigates the impact caused by the nonresidential development. It has generated 70 million over five years. The premise is simple. Every large scale commercial development has employees that need housing. Commercial Developers Must plan not only for investment in office space but for employees. The city determined the most equitable way to do that was having developers dedicate land to Affordable Housing or give money towards Affordable Housing. Fees are meant to be updated. They all have been except for jobs housing. The last time the fee was updated was in 1997. They are paying 28. 57 per square foot set years ago. Legislators and Community Members asked to update the jhl fee for years. Had the study been released years ago the fee would have been updated and the update is anticipated for a long time. Had the city been proactive in releasing the study this increase could have happened more incrementally over 20 years. Now we make up for years of the outdated fee and catching up is critical to address the housing affordable crisis. The nexus study that sets the fee is the only Legal Mechanism to update the fee. It determines the total per unit demand. Looking at the density of the employees in the new office space, worker incomes and what it costs the city to build the Affordable Housing. The nexxus study does not address the housing problems of existing population. The study focuses on documenting the Housing Needs of new low and middle income workers, not all workers. It looks at a portion of the development on housing. The nexus recommends an updated fee. It shows total demand is. 8. For every 100,000 square foot of development we need 81 new Affordable Housing units. By multpying and divide multi playing. For new Office Development to meet demands on Affordable Housing the maximum numb fee is 193. 33. If we were to mitigate the impact on Affordable Housing for new workers and achieve the balance that would be 193. 33. Here is what our legislation does. It changes the fee amounts for office to 69. 60 and laboratory to 46. 43 aligns indexing with other fees. Changes how fees are allocated. 10 go to acquisition of Affordable Housing. We specify Current Practice that 30 of new construction will go to permanent Supportive Housing to create the first dedicated stream of funding for this use. It will specify 60 is attributed to the Affordable Housing fund. It doesnt change the way the fee is assessed. The rates before you take into consideration the recommendation from the nexus study as well as Feasibility Study. The nexus study justifies a much higher rate. Neither study are perfect ways to set fees. On average area plan impact fees are set at 36 of the maximum allowable fee. The proposed office fee that we put forward follows that trend. With this new fee the city would generate at least 500 million over 10 years to produce 2000 new units over the next decade. I am sure you will hear about the Feasibility Study. I want to say a brief thing before i close. The Feasibility Study is not required. It is providing a perspective to consider when setting policy. While the study identifies Office Development feasibility as an objective. It states the city is interested in making sure new development pays its own way. It did not take into account the need for office. It assumes Office Development is the priority when the real issue as i started to describe is how we actually house these workers. How do we ensure a balance of jobs and housing for a healthy and affordable city . With due respect to the planning, the suggested fee in the study is well with in the limits of the 1997 study. If the base were adjuncted adjusted it would be what the study is suggesting. If you look at the fee in 1997 we could charge more than 42. This fails to take into accounted the greater cost of building housing and the strength of the office market. It suggests setting a fee beyond the recommended feasibility will halt construction. This is simply not true and pits profitability of Office Developments against housing workers who want to live in cities in which they work. None of the pro to types are feasible. There are over 10 million square feet of office space in the pipeline currently. Business times reported that the new Office Buildings on the market is helping to push up office rents. Rents estimated to increase over the next 12 months and vacancy to decrease. San francisco has the lowest return requirements for Office Investment in the nation. This fee is long anticipated. Supervisor kim told me when i came into office that she intended to update the fee, and while i dont expect that we may have an exact consensus on the fee amount today, i hope we all agree we are long overdue for an update to the fee that reflects current reality. Commercial uses benefit for the availability of housing close to employees. This is a way to ensure we can do that. We must invest at a rate that keeps rate with job growth. If we need the demand to have a healthy city. I know this Commission Said it again and again we need a better job housing fit. This reasonable targeted fee increase is a critical step. I will be here to answer questions as well as my staff is here as well. Thank you very much. Commissioners the department supports the aims of the ordinance updating the fee and procedures is crucial to funding the infrastructure including Affordable Housing. The department believes any new fee rate should reflect the latest assessment vase national. Reasonable. 38. 57 is feasible given the office pro to types and correct market conditions. It is possible certain sites or locations can support a higher fee now or in the near future because of falling Construction Costs, escalating commercial rents or Site Specific factors. The department is unaware of similar assessment for lab uses. Before any fee rate increases a Feasibility Study for lab uses should be done and analysis should be completed. For office uses Construction Costs are necessary to support higher fees. That could be concludes our comments. We are here for questions. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I have tons of speaker cards. David woo, felicia smith. Laura, curtis bradford. If you would like to speak, please line up on the left. Hello, commissioners, i am david woo. I am a district five resident. I am in support of this legislation. And for this longawaited update for the jobs housing fee the charge is led by Community Members themselves. The fact this fee has not been updated since 1997 speaks to the amount of additional benefit commercial developers have been getting by not paying the correct amount for the impact fee. This is not a new fee. It has been outofdate for two decades. The city knows developments have impacts. Those in existing neighborhoods are aware of that. This is a partial, not full mitigation. As the Planning Department and Commission Talk of complete communities when discusses new development or land use, thinking of open space, transportation and child care, mitigation measures such as jobs housing linkage provide part of that funding. By chronically under fundings those aspects by keeping fees low it gives a signal to the public and communities that city hall and the bodies responsible for planning are not interested in building complete and healthy communities. It signals Luxury Development is more priority than Affordable Housing. The needs of the private are more important than the needs of the working class families in San Francisco. This is not a new step. It is a long overdue corrective. The trends have been dictated by the private market. When it is hot, a killing is made off private development and the profits are enormous. Impact speed fees provide the health that is concentrated in the hands of a few. As someone in district 5, i have seen the impacts of two tech booms that have affected every neighborhood in San Francisco. This has city wide impacts. Catering to tech has city wide impacts. At least update the existing fee, and i ask this commission to please support this legislation as written and proposed. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, lauren. I am a long time resident of district 5 and member of senior and disability action. I urge you to support supervisor haneys proposal for the jobs housing linkage fee update. This will relieve the enormous pressure to displace current residents, largely seniors and people with disabilities and others of low to moderate incomes in order to make way for new Office Workers. Matching new jobs with new Affordable Housing, not luxury housing, is way overdue. For decades the city forced seniors to bear the burden of the housing crisis through displacement. Office developers were given free reign to build and profit. The bill came due to the residents of San Francisco. We paid and continue to pay in suffering, anxiety, insecurity and, yes, even death. We have been vilified for wanting to hold onto our homes. That includes politically created wedge that has come betweengererations. Generations. City policies have not provided the jobs Affordable Housing balance. This is long overdue, fair, moderate, the right thing to do and the smart thing to do, and it must be implimented immediately. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Calvin welch, San Francisco. I would like to speak in support of supervisor haneys version of this ordinance, specifically the fee. Staffs report seems to be in error in two ways. One it is totally confused on the meaning of the nexus study and a Feasib