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 inco